GAO-18-656, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: Considerations for ...Competitiveness in Quantum Computing, Synthetic Biology, and Other Potentially Transformational Research Areas . September

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Considerations for Maintaining U.S. Competitiveness in Quantum Computing, Synthetic Biology, and Other Potentially Transformational Research Areas

September 2018

GAO-18-656

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to the Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, House of Representatives

United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-18-656, a report to the Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, House of Representatives

September 2018

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Considerations for Maintaining U.S. Competitiveness in Quantum Computing, Synthetic Biology, and Other Potentially Transformational Research Areas

What GAO Found Multiple federal and nonfederal entities support research for transformational technological advances in the areas of quantum computing—the manipulation of bits of data using the behavior of individual atoms, molecules, or other quantum systems to potentially outperform supercomputers—and synthetic biology—the combination of biology and engineering to create or modify biological systems. GAO found that at least 6 agencies support quantum computing research; at least 10 agencies support synthetic biology research; and nonfederal entities, such as universities and businesses, support research in both areas.

Quantum Computing Device (Left) and 3D Bioprinted Coronary Artery (Right)

Agency officials said they coordinate on quantum computing and synthetic biology through efforts such as conferences and interagency groups, but GAO found that certain new efforts have not fully implemented selected leading collaboration practices. The quantum computing group, co-chaired by officials from 4 agencies, and the synthetic biology group, led by the National Science Foundation, have taken initial steps to implement some leading practices GAO identified that can enhance and sustain interagency collaboration. For example, both groups agreed to coordinate their research, and participating agencies documented agreement with the quantum computing group’s purpose through a charter. However, the groups have not fully implemented other practices, such as agreeing on roles and responsibilities and identifying common outcomes, that could help ensure they effectively marshal agencies’ efforts to maintain U.S. competitiveness in quantum computing and synthetic biology. Experts identified considerations for maintaining U.S. competitiveness through transformational technological advances. The considerations broadly address federal and nonfederal entities’ roles in supporting such advances and include: • developing a strategic approach using consortia or other mechanisms to

bring together potential partners; • fostering an environment in which information is shared among researchers

while also considering the risks of information sharing; • focusing on technology development and commercialization, for example, by

providing support across multiple stages of technology innovation; and • strengthening the science and technology workforce through training,

recruiting, and retaining talent.

View GAO-18-656. For more information, contact John Neumann at (202) 512-3841 or [email protected].

Why GAO Did This Study Scientific and technological innovation contributes to U.S. economic competitiveness and prosperity. Federal agencies support transformational technological advances—those that result in new or significantly enhanced technologies—by, for example, funding research (nearly $70 billion in obligations in fiscal year 2017). GAO was asked to examine support for research that could lead to transformational technological advances. This report (1) describes federal agencies’ and nonfederal entities’ support for such research in selected areas, (2) examines federal agencies’ coordination on this research, and (3) describes experts’ views on considerations for maintaining U.S. competitiveness through such advances. GAO selected quantum computing and synthetic biology as examples of research areas that could lead to transformational technological advances. GAO reviewed agency documents and interviewed federal officials, subject matter experts, and stakeholders. GAO also worked with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to convene a meeting to solicit views from 19 experts selected from government, academia, and industry, among others.

What GAO Recommends GAO recommends that the agencies leading the interagency quantum computing and synthetic biology groups take steps to fully implement leading collaboration practices. The agencies agreed with GAO’s recommendations.

https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-656

https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-656

mailto:[email protected]

Page i GAO-18-656 Science And Technology

Letter 1

Background 7 Multiple Federal Agencies and Nonfederal Entities Support

Quantum Computing and Synthetic Biology Research for Transformational Technological Advances 19

Agencies Coordinate Research through a Range of Efforts, but Interagency Groups Have Not Fully Implemented Selected Leading Practices 34

Experts Identified Key Considerations for Maintaining U.S. Competitiveness through Transformational Technological Advances 44

Conclusions 66 Recommendations for Executive Action 67 Agency Comments, Third-Party Views, and Our Evaluation 68

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 70

Appendix II Participants in GAO’s Meeting on Research for Transformational Technological Advances 76

Appendix III Funding/Investment Gap in the Manufacturing- Innovation Process (Corresponds to fig. 1) 77

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Commerce 78

Appendix V Comments from the Department of Energy 80

Appendix VI Comments from the National Science Foundation 81

Appendix VII GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 82

Contents

Page ii GAO-18-656 Science And Technology

Tables

Table 1: Extent of Implementation of Selected Leading Practices for Collaboration by the Quantum Information Science (QIS) Subcommittee, as of June 2018 41

Table 2: Extent of Implementation of Selected Leading Practices for Collaboration by the Synthetic Biology Working Group, as of June 2018 43

Table 3: Experts Who Participated in GAO’s Meeting on Research for Transformational Technological Advances, Held October 12-13, 2017 76

Figures

Figure 1: Funding/Investment Gap in the Manufacturing-Innovation Process 8

Figure 2: Federally Funded Research That Contributed to Development of Technologies Used to Create the iPod and iPhone 14

Figure 3 Funding/Investment Gap in the Manufacturing-Innovation Process (Corresponds to fig. 1) 77

Abbreviations

ARPA-E Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy

BER Biological and Environmental Research BRAIN Initiative Brain Research through Advancing

Innovative Neurotechnologies Initiative COMPETES 2007 America Creating Opportunities to

Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act

CRISPR clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats

DARPA Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

DHS Department of Homeland Security DNA deoxyribonucleic acid DOD Department of Defense DOE Department of Energy

Page iii GAO-18-656 Science And Technology

Abbreviations Continued EPA Environmental Protection Agency EPSCoR Established Program to Stimulate

Competitive Research HHS Department of Health and Human Services IARPA Intelligence Advanced Research Projects

Activity iGEM International Genetically Engineered

Machine JQI Joint Quantum Institute MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology NASA National Aeronautics and Space

Administration NIH National Institutes of Health NIST National Institute of Standards and

Technology NSCI National Strategic Computing Initiative NSF National Science Foundation NSTC National Science and Technology Council ODNI Office of the Director of National Intelligence OSTP Office of Science and Technology Policy “qubits” quantum bits QIS quantum information science QIS Subcommittee Subcommittee on Quantum Information

Science QIS working group Interagency Working Group on Quantum

Information Science RNA ribonucleic acid SEMATECH Semiconductor Manufacturing Technology

consortium STEM science, technology, engineering and math USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.

Page 1 GAO-18-656 Science And Technology

441 G St. N.W. Washington, DC 20548

September 26, 2018

The Honorable Barbara Comstock Chairwoman The Honorable Daniel Lipinski Ranking Member Subcommittee on Research and Technology Committee on Science, Space, and Technology House of Representatives

Federal support for research and development can accelerate innovation, drive technological advances, and promote U.S. competitiveness in the global economy. For example, federally supported research led to the introduction of global positioning systems and touchscreen technologies that contributed to the development of smartphones, creating new industries and significant economic growth.1 In fiscal year 2017, the federal government obligated nearly $70 billion for research, according to the National Science Foundation (NSF).2 While some research leads to incremental changes in a scientific field, other research can yield disruptive or transformational advances. These advances are transformational because they result in new technologies or significantly enhanced capabilities in existing technologies.

The United States is considered a world leader in many science and technology areas, but other countries, such as China, are also making considerable investments in research. Increased competition from these countries has led some experts and others to express concern that the United States may be losing its competitive advantage. In January 2018, NSF’s National Science Board reported that the United States’ overall global share of research and development spending is declining relative 1Peter L. Singer, Federally Supported Innovations: 22 Examples of Major Technology Advances That Stem From Federal Research Support, (Washington, D.C.: The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, February 2014). 2National Science Foundation, Survey of Federal Funds for Research and Development Fiscal Years 2015-2017, January 10, 2018, https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/fedfunds/2015/index.html. An obligation is a definite commitment that creates a legal liability of the government for the payment of goods and services ordered or received, or a legal duty on the part of the United States that could mature into a legal liability by virtue of actions on the part of the other party beyond the control of the United States. GAO, A Glossary of Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process, GAO-05-734SP (Washington, D.C.: September 2005).

Letter

https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/fedfunds/2015/index.html

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-734SP


to other countries.3 Moreover, other reports indicate that the United States is losing ground in certain technologies, such as intense ultrafast lasers, which may have applications in manufacturing, medicine, and national security.4

Since 2007, a series of laws has built on prior federal efforts to invest in innovation through research and development and to improve the United States’ competitiveness.5 In 2007, the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act (COMPETES 2007) established the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) in the Department of Energy (DOE) to overcome long-term and high-risk technological barriers in the development of energy technologies.6 It also, among other things, authorized programs in the Department of Education and NSF to train teachers in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) fields. In 2011, the COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 reauthorized parts of COMPETES 2007, established several new programs, and authorized additional funding for STEM education.7 In 2017, the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act of 2017 reauthorized some parts of the COMPETES acts.8 The three acts also provided direction to the Office of 3The National Science Board also reported that the European Union’s global share of research and development spending, overall, declined. National Science Foundation, National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2018, NSB-2018-1 (Alexandria, VA: 2018). 4Ultrafast lasers concentrate their energy in a very short-duration pulse (less than a trillionth of a second), which can be focused on a small area to reach the highest peak power and intensity. The National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, Opportunities in Intense Ultrafast Lasers: Reaching for the Brightest Light (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2017). 5Legislation prior to 2007 includes, for example, the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980, which was enacted for the purpose of improving the economic, environmental, and social well-being of the United States by, among other things, stimulating improved utilization of federally funded technology developments by nonfederal entities. Pub. L. No. 96-480, 94 Stat. 2311 (1980) (codified as amended at 15 U.S.C. §§ 3701-3715, 3719-3723). Another law enacted in 1980, commonly referred to as the Bayh-Dole Act, allowed not-for-profit corporations, including universities, and small businesses to retain title to their federally funded inventions. Patent and Trademark Law Amendments Act, Pub. L. No. 96-517, 94 Stat. 3015 (1980) (codified as amended at 35 U.S.C. §§ 200-211). 6Pub. L. No. 110-69, § 5012(b), 121 Stat. 572, 621 (2007) (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 16538(b)). 7Pub. L. No. 111-358, 124 Stat. 3982 (2011). 8Pub. L. No. 114-329, 130 Stat. 2969 (2017).


Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), whose responsibilities include coordinating federal research programs, advising the President on scientific and technological considerations with regard to federal budgets, and advising the President of scientific and technological considerations involved in areas of national concern.

However, continued concerns related to the federal debt and federal budget deficits are forcing difficult decisions about how much the federal government should spend on research, as well as what types of research it should fund. These concerns overlie a long-standing debate about the federal government’s role in supporting science and technology research and which roles should be left to the private sector, academia, or other nonfederal entities. We have reported that the government often funds research at the early stages of technology development, whereas industry typically supports the final stages of technology development.9 As a result, U.S. innovators may find it difficult to obtain public funding or private investment during the middle stages of innovation. We have also reported that substantial amounts of funding or investment are needed to support technology maturation through the middle stages of innovation and that high costs can be a barrier to technology commercialization, especially for small and medium-sized U.S. enterprises. Long-standing disagreements among stakeholders about the appropriateness of the federal government taking an active role in supporting technological advances with ambiguous applications has led to the creation, and sometimes the dissolution, of programs such as the Advanced Technology Program and the Technology Innovation Program. These two programs were established to help U.S. businesses and organizations support, promote, and accelerate innovation through high-risk, high-

9GAO, Nanomanufacturing and U.S. Competitiveness: Challenges and Opportunities, GAO-14-618T (Washington, D.C.: May 20, 2014).

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-618T


reward research in areas of critical national need.10 Different perspectives on the appropriate federal role may have also led to the proposals in the President’s Budget for fiscal years 2018 and 2019 to eliminate ARPA-E.

You asked us to examine federal and nonfederal support for research that could accelerate innovation and advance U.S. competitiveness. This report (1) describes federal agencies’ and nonfederal entities’ support for research for transformational technological advances in selected areas, (2) examines federal agencies’ coordination on this research, and (3) provides experts’ views on considerations for maintaining U.S. competitiveness through transformational technological advances.

To address these objectives, we selected quantum computing (a sub-area of quantum information science) and synthetic biology as examples of areas of research that could lead to transformational technological advances. We selected these two areas based on several factors, including that they (1) represent enabling or platform technologies, (2) are supported by a mix of federal agencies and nonfederal entities, and (3) represent areas of congressional interest in which we have not recently conducted work.11 For the purposes of our report, we defined quantum computing as computing in which bits of data are manipulated by using the behavior of atoms, molecules, or other quantum systems, with the potential to carry out extremely complicated calculations for specific

10The National Institute of Standards and Technology administered the Advanced Technology Program from fiscal year 1991 through fiscal year 2007 and the Technology Innovation Program from fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year 2010. The Advanced Technology Program was to address long-term, high-risk areas of technological research and development that were not otherwise being adequately developed by the private sector but were likely to yield important benefits to the nation. American Technology Preeminence Act of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-245, § 201(b), 106 Stat. 7, 15 (1992). In 2007, the Advanced Technology Program was repealed and replaced with the Technology Innovation Program, which was established for the purpose of assisting U.S. businesses and institutions of higher education, as well as other organizations, to support, promote, and accelerate innovation in the United States through high-risk, high-reward research in areas of critical national need. COMPETES 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-69, § 3012, 121 Stat. 572, 593 (2007). The Technology Innovation Program was repealed in 2017 by the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act. Pub. L. No. 114-329, § 205(a)(1), 130 Stat. 2969, 3000 (2017). 11Enabling technology is equipment and/or methodology that, alone or in combination with associated technologies, provides the means to generate giant leaps in performance and user capabilities. A platform technology represents technologies that are used as a base on which other applications, processes, or techniques are developed. These technologies function as innovation catalysts and facilitate the development of follow-on technologies with applications for various industries.


problems that can outperform conventional supercomputers. We defined synthetic biology as the intersection of biology and engineering that focuses on the modification or creation of novel biological systems for useful purposes.

To describe federal agencies’ and nonfederal entities’ support for research that could lead to transformational technological advances in quantum computing or synthetic biology, we focused on federal and nonfederal efforts in fiscal year 2016 through the second quarter of fiscal year 2018. We reviewed agency documentation, relevant literature, and our prior work related to federal research efforts. We also interviewed officials from federal agencies that support quantum computing or synthetic biology research, as well as subject matter experts in the areas of quantum computing, synthetic biology, or federal research more broadly from industry, academia, nonprofit organizations, and professional associations. We included 10 agencies in our review: Department of Commerce, Department of Defense (DOD), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), DOE, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), NSF, Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).12 We did not seek to develop comprehensive information on federal agencies’ and nonfederal entities’ efforts to support research in quantum computing and synthetic biology. As a result, federal agencies and nonfederal entities could have efforts in these two areas that we do not discuss in our report.

To examine federal agencies’ coordination on quantum computing and synthetic biology research, we identified coordination efforts that took place in fiscal year 2016 through the second quarter of fiscal year 2018 during our review of agency documentation and interviews with federal officials, including OSTP officials. We then compared these efforts with selected leading practices for enhancing and sustaining collaboration.13 We selected six of the eight leading practices based on their relevance to

12We refer to departments and agencies, collectively, as agencies in our report. Also, as part of our efforts to collect information from DOE, we collected information from the National Nuclear Security Administration. 13GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005).

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15


the operations of the interagency coordination efforts we identified.14 In this report, and in our past work, we define collaboration as any joint activity that is intended to produce more public value than could be produced when organizations act alone.15

To provide experts’ views on considerations for maintaining U.S. competitiveness through transformational technological advances, we convened a meeting of 19 experts in October 2017, with the assistance of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.16 The experts included current and former federal officials and subject matter experts from industry, academia, nonprofit organizations, and professional associations. About half of the experts were subject matter experts in quantum computing or synthetic biology, while the other half were experts with broader perspectives on the role of federal and nonfederal entities in supporting research for transformational technological advances. We worked with the National Academies to select experts with a range of viewpoints. We used a transcript of the meeting in analyzing information obtained from these experts. See appendix I for more detailed information on the scope and methods of our review and appendix II for a list of the experts who participated in the meeting we convened.

We conducted this performance audit from November 2016 to September 2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

14We excluded from our review two leading practices related to reinforcing agency accountability and individual accountability for collaborative efforts. 15We also refer to coordination as collaboration in our work. 16We planned and convened this meeting of experts with the assistance of the National Academies to better ensure a breadth of expertise; however, we were responsible for all final decisions regarding meeting substance and expert participation. Any conclusions and recommendations in our reports are solely our own.


This section provides information on translating research into new products or services, the federal government’s role in supporting research, and OSTP’s role in fostering collaboration among the various entities. It also provides information on the areas of quantum computing and synthetic biology.

Technological innovation involves not only creating new ideas but also translating those ideas into a new product or service.17 Innovation, and the research driving it, is inherently risky because the likelihood that research can be translated into a product or service and the ultimate value of that product or service are unknown. Because of this risk and the long time frames sometimes associated with technology development, there can be a gap in funding and investment support that makes it challenging to translate research into commercialized products or services. While government and universities often support early-stage research and industry tends to support later stages of development, there may be a gap during the middle stages of innovation during which innovators may have difficulty finding financial support, as illustrated in figure 1 (see app. III for a printable version).18

17National Research Council of the National Academies, Building the Illinois Innovation Economy: Summary of a Symposium (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2013). 18GAO, Nanomanufacturing: Emergence and Implications for U.S. Competitiveness, the Environment, and Human Health, GAO-14-181SP (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31, 2014).

Background

Translating Research into New Products or Services



Figure 1: Funding/Investment Gap in the Manufacturing-Innovation ProcessInteractive Graphic

Instructions: Online, roll your mouse over each arrow in the figure for more information.For printable version, see Appendix III, page 75.


The linear, or pipeline, model of innovation presents innovation as a succession of outputs that transfer to the next level as inputs. The starting point in the pipeline model is basic research. Knowledge created through basic research transitions to the next stage of applied research then to development and, finally, commercialization. Under this model, innovation takes place in distinct and sequential phases.

Critics of the pipeline model have noted that innovation is actually cyclical because the development of knowledge involves feedback and interaction at these different stages of the cycle.19 Alternative innovation models include the following:

• Extended pipeline model. Under this model certain research anddevelopment organizations support the entire technologydevelopment process, from basic research to initialcommercialization.20 Unlike the pipeline model, in which thegovernment’s support is disconnected from the rest of the innovationecosystem, under the extended pipeline model the government’s roleis deeply connected to the rest of the system. Under this model,federal entities such as DOD support the evolution of technologies,including electronics, computing, and the internet, across all stages ofinnovation.

• Induced innovation model.21 Innovation that follows this model ismore industry-led because the parties involved have a market nichethat the research needs to meet. Research under this model is morelikely to lead to incremental advances because it is conducted inresponse to market demand.22

19William B. Bonvillian and Charles Weiss, Technological Innovation in Legacy Sectors (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015), 23-30. Department of Commerce, Between Invention and Innovation: An Analysis of Funding for Early-Stage Technology Development (Gaithersburg, MD: Nov. 2002). 20William B. Bonvillian and Peter L. Singer, Advanced Manufacturing: The New American Innovation Policies, (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2017) 8. 21This model is also sometimes referred to as a technology demand or technology pull model. See Vernon Ruttan, Technology Growth and Development: An Induced Innovation Perspective (New York: Oxford University Press 2001) 7. 22Bonvillian and Singer, Advanced Manufacturing: The New American Innovation Policies, 7. Bonvillian and Weiss, Technological Innovation in Legacy Sectors, 25. Ruttan,Technology Growth and Development, 7.


• Manufacturing-led model. Under this model,23 innovation is pursuedwith the main objective of manufacturing. This model describesinnovations in production technologies, processes, and products thatemerge from the manufacturing process. The production process issupplemented by applied research and development. It is typicallyindustry-led but may have strong government support, particularly incountries such as Germany, Japan and China whose economies areorganized around this model.

While the different innovation models receive various levels of federal support, examining the organization of federal agencies in support of innovation is complex because of the decentralized nature of the federal research system. More than 25 federal agencies support intramural or extramural research, and these agencies may play different roles in supporting research that may lead to potentially transformational technologies. For example, NSF supports basic research that is in keeping with its mission of promoting the progress of science; advancing the national health, prosperity, and welfare; and securing the national defense. DOD supports research in line with its mission to provide the military forces needed to deter war and to protect the United States’ security, while DOE supports research in line with its mission to ensure America’s security and prosperity by addressing its energy, environmental, and nuclear challenges. Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) supports research in measurement science, standards, and technology, in keeping with its mission to promote innovation and industrial competitiveness. Other agencies—such as EPA, and HHS’s Food and Drug Administration—support research in their capacity as regulatory agencies.

Federal support for research is not only decentralized but also changes over time. Factors such as international conflict, budgetary pressures, and globalization may contribute to shifts in U.S. science and technology policy.24 In times of war, federal support for research has increased in part because of the view that America’s military survival might depend on science and technology leadership.25 Budgetary pressures also affect the

23Bonvillian and Singer, Advanced Manufacturing, 8. 24Donald E. Stokes, Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1997), 90-95. 25Stokes, Pasteur’s Quadrant, 91.

Federal Role in Supporting Research


federal role in research when such pressures lead to reductions in federal funding for research. Globalization and the associated integration of the world economy may also affect federal science and technology policy. While the United States invests far more resources in research and development than any other country, its rank in research and development intensity has slowly fallen in recent years.26

Researchers have said that, in addition to globalization, domestic changes—such as the structure of U.S. companies—present new challenges to commercializing new products and services.27 For example, in the last few decades, the amount of research produced by industrial laboratories has declined. Further, U.S. companies, particularly small and midsized firms, devote fewer resources to train employees compared to firms from the 1980s.28 In recognition of the need for a more skilled workforce to enhance U.S. competitiveness, the federal government has increasingly shifted attention to preparing students for careers in STEM fields.29

The federal role also changes in response to differing policy views. One policy perspective maintains that the federal role should be to support innovation across the economy. This policy approach has underpinned innovation and economic growth since at least the end of World War II. As we reported previously, another perspective is that the federal role should be to support individual sectors.30 Critics of the latter perspective argue that the government should not “pick winners and losers” in

26The National Science Board defines research and development intensity as the ratio of research and development expenditures to gross domestic product. In 2018, the National Science Board reported that the United States’ rank by the “research and development intensity” indicator fell from 8th in 2009 to 10th in 2011 and to 11th in 2013 and 2015. National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2018. 27Suzanne Berger, Making In America: From Innovation to Market (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2013), 15-19. 28Berger, Making In America, 19. Bonvillian and Singer, Advanced Manufacturing, 221-222. 29GAO, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education: Assessing the Relationship between Education and the Workforce, GAO-14-374 (Washington, D.C.: May 8, 2014). As part of this effort, many federal agencies administer STEM education programs. In addition to the federal effort, state and local governments, universities and colleges, and the private sector have also developed programs that provide opportunities for students to pursue STEM education and occupations. 30GAO-14-181SP.




commercial contexts because it is unlikely that the government will have sufficient information or foresight about an individual firm’s or a particular technology’s growth potential to select it for special subsidy.31 This view advocates allocating resources through market mechanisms because such mechanisms are anticipated to result in U.S. investments that are most efficient and best suited to the comparative advantages of the United States.32 However, the federal government has supported individual sectors from research and development through implementation, most often because of the government’s own needs in areas deemed important for national security (e.g., aerospace and defense).33 In addition, findings of economic market failures have justified other interventions, such as for research, development, and demonstrations in various sectors, including agriculture and energy, and recently, advanced production technologies.34

The federal government has partnered with nonfederal entities to translate research into commercialized products to foster economic growth.35 For example, DOD, through programs such as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), has partnered with nonfederal entities to support both early-stage research and later-stage production.36 Some of these partnerships have led to development of transformational technologies. For example, in the 1970s DOD supported development of a communications network to facilitate information sharing, which is considered the foundation of the modern internet.37

31GAO-14-181SP. 32GAO-14-181SP. 33GAO-14-181SP. Vernon W. Ruttan, Is War Necessary for Economic Growth? Military Procurement and Technology Development (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006) 3-9. 34President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Report to the President on Ensuring American Leadership in Advanced Manufacturing (Washington, D.C.: June 2011). 35President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Report to the President on Capturing Domestic Competitive Advantage in Advanced Manufacturing (Washington, D.C.: July 2012); and GAO, Advanced Manufacturing: Commerce Could StrengthenCollaboration with Other Agencies on Innovation Institutes, GAO-17-320 (Washington,D.C.: Apr. 6, 2017).36GAO, Military Acquisitions: DOD Is Taking Steps to Address Challenges Faced by Certain Companies, GAO-17-644 (Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2017). 37GAO-17-644.








DOD also funded research in the 1950s on speech recognition and artificial intelligence that commercial companies leveraged in the 1990s and 2000s to develop technologies such as the Speech Interpretation and Recognition Interface, the iPhone assistant.38 NIST research, such as its critical technical evaluations of speech recognition technologies dating back to the 1980s, also contributed to the development of Speech Interpretation and Recognition Interface, according to NIST officials. Alongside DOE, HHS and NSF, DOD has funded research that led to technologies used to make the first iPod and later the iPhone (see fig. 2).39 Many federal agencies also support other mechanisms, such as Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer grants, to stimulate innovation by facilitating interactions among the federal government, private sector, and nonprofit research institutions.

38GAO-17-644. 39Singer, Federally Supported Innovations; Mariana Mazzucato, The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths. (New York, NY: Anthem Press, 2013); and Office of Science and Technology Policy, American Competitiveness Initiative: Leading the World in Innovation (Washington, D.C.: 2006).



Figure 2: Federally Funded Research That Contributed to Development of Technologies Used to Create the iPod and iPhone

Note: See Breakthrough Institute, Where Good Technologies Come From (Oakland, CA: 2010) and Mariana Mazzucato, The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths (New York, NY: Anthem Press, 2013). According to NIST officials, NIST research in measurements and standards for networking, semiconductors, communications, materials, and cybersecurity contributed to technologies used to develop the iPod and iPhone. Other examples of NIST research contributions to smartphone technologies are in the areas of time and frequency, computing power, and radio communications.

OSTP was established in 1976 to provide advice on the scientific, engineering, and technological aspects of issues that require attention at the highest levels of government.40 Advances in technology in areas such as quantum computing and synthetic biology have become increasingly interdisciplinary, and OSTP works with agencies across the decentralized federal research system to coordinate activities to support these advances. The National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) is a key component of these efforts and is charged with coordinating science and

40National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976, Pub. L. No. 94-282, § 204, 90 Stat. 459, 463 (1976).

Role of OSTP in Fostering Collaboration


technology policy across the federal government.41 One of the NSTC’s primary objectives is to establish clear national goals for federal science and technology investments. NSTC organizes its work under six committees, such as the Committee on STEM Education, which is responsible for coordinating federal programs and activities in support of STEM education.42 In addition to pulling together federal entities, OSTP also plays a role in pulling together nonfederal entities to help tackle technological issues of importance to the nation. For example, the National Strategic Computing Initiative, created in 2015, is a government collaboration with industry and academia to sustain and enhance U.S. leadership in high-performance computing.43

Quantum computing has the potential to revolutionize computing by introducing a fundamentally new approach to computing not available with classical computers, which constitute most computers in use today. Classical computers process two different states as 1s and 0s (binary digits) to form “bits” of information that the computer manipulates. Bits can exist in either a 1 or 0 state. These bits may be created using, for example, specific voltage or current levels in a circuit, and there is a limit as to how quickly transistors in classical computers can manipulate these bits to conduct calculations or how many circuit components can be included on a computer chip. While classical computers rely on bits,

41The NSTC was established by Executive Order 12881 on November 23, 1993. The council is chaired by the President, and its members include the Vice President, cabinet secretaries and agency heads with significant science and technology responsibilities, and other White House officials. The Assistant to the President for Science and Technology convenes meetings of the NSTC and, in the President’s absence, presides over the meetings. 42The NSTC’s six committees are the Committees on Environment, Homeland and National Security, Science, Science and Technology Enterprise, STEM Education, and Technology. NSTC sometimes organizes efforts on more specific topics under these committees. For example, the National Nanotechnology Initiative, which will be discussed in more detail later in this report, is an effort to bring federal agencies together to enhance understanding and control of nanoscale material and is coordinated by the NSTC Committee on Technology's Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee. 43Executive Order 13702 established the National Strategic Computing Initiative (NSCI) on July 29, 2015. DOE, DOD, and NSF lead the NSCI effort, and OSTP and the Office of Management and Budget co-chair the NSCI Executive Council. The following agencies also participate in the NSCI: DHS, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA), NASA, National Institutes of Health (NIH), NIST, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and National Security Agency.

Quantum Computing


quantum computers rely on quantum bits (“qubits”).44 Unlike bits, qubits can be in combinations of both a 1 and a 0 at the same time due to quantum superposition. Phenomena such as quantum superposition and quantum entanglement (the ability of two particles to have correlated information, even at a distance) make quantum computers more powerful than even today’s most advanced classical supercomputers for solving some complex problems.45 This ability to exist in combinations of both states simultaneously allows for the efficient implementation of certain algorithms, resulting in the ability to solve certain types of problems significantly faster than classical computers.46

To date, a universal quantum computer is not commercially available.47 As of 2017, quantum computers contain at most 50 qubits and can perform some small calculations more slowly than classical computers. Among the challenges to building a quantum computer are developing software and hardware. Quantum hardware allows the computer to manipulate qubits by completely isolating quantum processors from outside forces. Quantum computing hardware is at the laboratory prototype stage and is progressing steadily, according to a 2016 federal report.48 Hardware development efforts include the creation of logical qubits, which use error correction techniques to actively mitigate errors, thus stabilizing the quantum state of the qubit even in the presence of external factors (i.e., noise). Quantum information is extremely fragile and requires special techniques and equipment, such as extreme refrigeration, to maintain the qubit. Other challenges include creating qubits of high quality, packaging them together in a scalable form so they

44American Leadership in Quantum Technology, Before the H. Comm. on Science, Space, and Technology, 115th Cong. 31 (2017) (statement of Carl J. Williams, Acting Director, Physical Measurement Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology Department of Commerce). 45American Leadership in Quantum Technology (2017). 46An algorithm is a step-by-step procedure for solving a problem or accomplishing some end especially by a computer, according to Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. 47A universal quantum computer would be able to solve any computational problem, as opposed to a more specialized quantum computer that would have more limited use. According to an industry research laboratory, the universal quantum computer is the most powerful and the hardest to build, posing a number of difficult technical challenges. Current estimates indicate that this machine would comprise more than 100,000 physical qubits. 48National Science and Technology Council, Advancing Quantum Information Science: National Challenges and Opportunities (Washington, D.C.: July 22, 2016).


can perform complex calculations in a controllable way, and limiting the errors that can result from heat and electromagnetic radiation. Addressing these challenges may require developing new materials. Stakeholders still consider developing a universal quantum computer a long-term goal. When available, these computers could provide new computational methods and powerful new tools for researchers. Quantum computing has the potential to support significant breakthroughs in medicine, manufacturing, artificial intelligence, defense, and improved cybersecurity. However, it may take a decade or more before such technology is ready to be demonstrated at scale.

Synthetic biology represents an intersection of biology and engineering that focuses on the modification or creation of novel biological systems. The current state of synthetic biology is mostly the result of research in biology, engineering, computer science, and information technology dating back to the mid-1900s. Synthetic biology has drawn increasing attention as a potentially transformative platform technology. Whether found in nature or synthesized in a test tube, the building blocks of synthetic biology are assembled to create biological systems. Synthetic biological systems can function in cell-free environments, such as cell extracts, or may be placed into living cells, such as bacteria, which serve as a “chassis.” In the short-term, synthetic biology is enhancing understanding of how living organisms work through progress in the ability to design and construct biological parts.

Synthetic biology is already being applied in a variety of fields. Through the creation of novel biological systems, synthetic biology offers potential solutions to many current challenges, such as climate change, energy needs, and global health. For example, synthetic biology may help address global warming through the development of artificial leaf technology, a synthetic version of the photosynthesis process.49 In the energy sector, synthetic biology is being used to devise more efficient methods of producing biofuels,50 and in the healthcare sector, synthetic

49The Royal Academy of Engineering, Synthetic Biology: Scope Applications and Implications, (London, United Kingdom: May 2009), 2. Julian David, Janna Olmos and Joanna Kargul, “A Quest for the Artificial Leaf,” The International Journal of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, 66 (2015) 37-44. 50Current methods of producing biofuels result from the production of ethanol from sugars or biodiesel from vegetable oils. These methods have the disadvantage of not being particularly efficient processes that waste much of the organic matter or biomass. See The Royal Academy of Engineering, Synthetic Biology.

Synthetic Biology


biology may lead to biosensors that can permanently reside in the body to detect and treat abnormalities such as cancer.51 Synthetic biology has already resulted in biosensors that can detect arsenic in drinking water.52 Factors that may support growth in synthetic biology applications include a decline in the cost of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) sequencing and increases in genetically engineered crop development, expenditures in research and development by biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, and demand for synthetic genes.53 On the other hand, bio-safety and bio-security concerns about the potential that synthetic biology could be used for nefarious purposes may restrict the short-term growth of synthetic biology.54

51The Royal Academy of Engineering, Synthetic Biology. 52Matthew Charles Edmundson and Louise Horsfall, “Construction of a modular arsenic-resistance operon in E. coli and the production of arsenic nanoparticles,” Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, 3, 160 (2015). 53Crystal Market Research, Synthetic Biology Market by Product and Application: Global Industry Analysis and Forecast to 2025 (New York, NY: NASDAQ OMX Corporate Solutions, Inc., November 2017). 54The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Biodefense in the Age of Synthetic Biology, (Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press: 2018); and Synthetic Biology Market.


Multiple federal agencies and nonfederal entities support quantum computing and synthetic biology research that could lead to transformational technological advances in many areas of the U.S. economy, including energy, medicine, and national security.55 We identified 6 agencies that in fiscal year 2016 through the second quarter of fiscal year 2018 supported quantum computing research to advance foundational understanding of quantum computing or to develop related hardware and software. We found that 4 of the 6 agencies reported a combined total of at least $23.4 million in obligations to support quantum computing research in fiscal year 2017.56 Similarly, we identified 10 agencies that, during the timeframe we reviewed, supported synthetic biology research to advance foundational understanding of synthetic biology or knowledge of how to apply it in bioengineering, national security, and biofuels development. We found that 6 of the 10 agencies reported a combined total of at least $211.2 million in obligations to support synthetic biology research in fiscal year 2017.57 We also identified a variety of nonfederal entities, such as universities and private companies, that conduct research in quantum computing and synthetic biology.

In fiscal year 2017, 6 agencies—DOD, DOE, ODNI, NASA, Commerce’s NIST, and NSF—supported quantum computing research, and 4 of these 6 agencies reported a combined total of at least $23.4 million in obligations toward those efforts. Agency officials, stakeholders, and experts we interviewed told us they expect quantum computers could lead to transformational advances in national security technologies or in technology areas that rely heavily on simulation, such as machine learning for defense capabilities, pharmaceuticals, and materials science

55There may be additional federal agencies that conduct research in quantum computing and synthetic biology that we do not discuss in this report. Additionally the federal agencies we discuss in this report may have applications in areas outside of those we present in this report. 56DOD and ODNI did not provide data on obligations. 57DHS reported that it does not have any obligations related to synthetic biology research. We were not able to collect data on obligations from NIH because the system that NIH uses to track funding of specific scientific topics does not have a category for synthetic biology. Also, ODNI and USDA did not provide data on obligations.

Multiple Federal Agencies and Nonfederal Entities Support Quantum Computing and Synthetic Biology Research for Transformational Technological Advances

Six Agencies Support Research in Quantum Computing


for advanced manufacturing.58 However, there is still uncertainty surrounding the specific applications of quantum computing. Agency officials, stakeholders, and experts told us that they anticipate that quantum computing applications may include large number factoring, optimization of certain tasks, and simulation of other quantum systems. Accordingly, agencies’ quantum computing efforts included research to advance foundational understanding of quantum information science as well as research to develop the hardware and software needed to build a universal quantum computer.

Federally supported research in areas including the physical sciences, mathematics, and engineering can help advance foundational understanding of quantum information science needed to build a universal quantum computer. Among the 6 agencies that support quantum computing research, examples of agencies’ efforts to support research to advance foundational understanding of quantum science include:

• NIST supports foundational quantum research at its laboratories andat several university-based research centers. At one of these centers,the Joint Quantum Institute (JQI) at the University of Maryland,researchers are investigating quantum computing architectures anddeveloping methods to control quantum effects that can be exploitedto process information in new ways.59 Additionally, NIST supportsJILA, an institute at the University of Colorado, where scientistsexplore fundamental questions related to quantum information andatomic and molecular physics.60

• NSF supports foundational quantum computing research as part of abroader portfolio of research on quantum phenomena in theDirectorates for Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Engineering,and Computer and Information Science and Engineering. Forexample, under its Physics Division’s Quantum Information Science

58We define advanced manufacturing as manufacturing that uses innovative technology to improve products or processes. 59The Joint Quantum Institute (JQI) was established in 2006 as a cooperative research institute between the University of Maryland and NIST to facilitate the interchange of ideas among scientists working in the fields of atomic physics, condensed matter, and quantum information. NIST also supports the Joint Center for Quantum Information and Computer Science, which was established in 2014 at the University of Maryland as a complement to the JQI. 60In 1995, the Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics changed its name to JILA.

Foundational Understanding of Quantum Information Science


and Revolutionary Computing program, NSF supports theoretical and experimental research on quantum-based computing paradigms, information, transmission, and manipulation.61 Also, the NSF Physics Division’s Physics Frontiers Centers program supports university-based centers and institutes in enabling transformational advances through interdisciplinary research across different areas of focus. One of the Physics Frontier Centers that NSF supports is located at the JQI; this center supports research that focuses on studying the controlling and monitoring of quantum phenomena to support quantum engineering. A second Physics Frontier Center is at JILA. Both the JQI and JILA represent partnerships between the NSF and NIST.

• DOE’s Office of Science supports foundational quantum computingresearch as part of its Advanced Scientific Computing Researchprogram, which focuses on discovering, developing, and deployingcomputational and networking capabilities to analyze, model,simulate, and predict complex phenomena important to DOE and theadvancement of science. The program’s efforts include partneringwith other Office of Science program offices to support researchaimed at understanding how future computing technologies, including

61According to testimony by the NSF Assistant Director for Computer and Information Science and Engineering before the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology’s Subcommittees on Research and Technology and Energy in October 2017, this program was established in fiscal year 2005 as the Quantum Information Science and Revolutionary Computing program. American Leadership in Quantum Technology, Before the Subcommittee on Research and Technology and the Subcommittee on Energy, 115th Congress (2017) (statement of Dr. James Kurose, Assistant Director for Computer Science and Engineering, National Science Foundation).

Joint Quantum Institute (JQI) The JQI is a research partnership between the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the University of Maryland, with the support and participation of the Laboratory for Physical Sciences. JQI was created in 2006 to pursue theoretical and experimental studies of quantum physics in the context of information science and technology. Among other objectives, JQI conducts fundamental research on the engineering and control of systems based on quantum mechanics, which describes the behavior of matter and energy at the smallest physical scales. One attribute of quantum physics is that certain properties of a particle, such as its momentum and position, are not fixed; instead these properties follow probability distributions that describe the likelihood a property may be a particular value. Researchers have also discovered that the quantum states of two separate objects, like two atoms, can be entangled such that the state of one object is correlated with the other. This entanglement makes it possible to move quantum information from one place to another. The phenomena that occur at the quantum scale have the potential to affect disparate economic sectors and could lead to improvements in computing and materials science, among others. For example, researchers at JQI have devised a new chip that generates and steers single photons, which could allow researchers to systematically assemble pathways for single photons and enable new types of optical devices. An illustration of a photonic chip created by JQI researchers.

Sources: JQI (text); and Emily Edwards, JQI (image). | GAO-18-656.


those based on quantum information science, could impact DOE’s mission.62

• NASA’s Quantum Artificial Intelligence Laboratory—a collaborativeeffort with Google and the Universities Space Research Association—supports foundational research to maximize utilization of emergingquantum hardware. This work involves analytical and experimentalresearch on the mechanisms underlying quantum computing,including, for example, researching quantum entanglement andmeasurement-based quantum computation. NASA also supportsuniversity-based quantum computing research through programs suchas the Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research(EPSCoR).63

Agency officials and experts said that a number of unresolved technical challenges exist related to the hardware necessary to build a quantum computer, including the materials from which to build qubits. Among the 6 agencies that support quantum computing research, examples of efforts to support research to develop the hardware for building a quantum computer include the following:

62The research supported by DOE’s Advanced Scientific Computing Research program follows a report that summarized a February 2015 DOE-led workshop on quantum computing for science. According to the report, high-fidelity modeling and simulation of physical systems is critical for DOE to address some of the most challenging problems in energy, the environment, and national security, and DOE has a long history of advancing computation and increasing the capabilities for its high-performance computing systems to address these challenges. However, the report noted that constraints on increasing improvements to current computing approaches are leading to consideration of alternative computing approaches, including quantum computing. The February 2015 workshop was organized to assess the viability of quantum computing technologies to meet the computational requirements of DOE’s science and energy mission, and to identify the potential impact of quantum technologies. The report found there is great potential for quantum computing to impact DOE’s mission; however, additional research in the fundamentals of computer science and mathematics is needed to mature quantum computing technologies into viable solutions for DOE. See Department of Energy, ASCR Report on Quantum Computing for Science, (Washington, D.C.: February 17-18, 2015). 63According to a Congressional Research Service report, NSF established the EPSCoR program—originally named the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research—in 1978 to address congressional concerns about an “undue concentration” of federal research and development funding in certain states. The program is designed to help institutions in eligible states build infrastructure, research capabilities, and training and human resource capacities to enable them to compete more successfully for open federal research and development funding awards. In addition to NSF, DOE, NASA, NIH, and USDA support EPSCoR or similar programs. See Congressional Research Service, Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR): Background and Selected Issues, R44689 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 12, 2017).

Hardware Development


• DOD supports research related to quantum computing, as part ofbroader portfolios of research across the department. For example, aspart of DOD’s Applied Research for the Advancement of Science andTechnology Priorities program, the Office of the Secretary of Defenseadministers the Quantum Science and Engineering Program—across-cutting effort that has supported research related totechnologies for controlling qubit entanglement, among other things.Additionally, DOD supports a research program on Quantum SystemSciences at Lincoln Laboratory, a federally funded research anddevelopment center operated by the Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology (MIT). This research encompasses, among other topics,development of quantum-based computation technologies.64

• DOE’s quantum science research efforts, such as those supported bythe Office of Science’s Advanced Scientific Computing Researchprogram, includes quantum computing hardware and architecture.After DOE issued its 2015 report on quantum computing for science,the agency held a February 2017 workshop to obtain information fromstakeholders on the opportunities and challenges in establishing aquantum testbed to advance quantum computing hardware.65

Subsequently, DOE issued solicitations in 2017 and 2018 forproposals to support developing quantum testbeds. According to anApril 2018 announcement for one of these solicitations, a testbedlaboratory will host experimental quantum computing platforms thatare not yet ready for commercialization, and will function as acollaborative facility to provide internal and external researchers withaccess to novel, early-stage quantum computing resources.

• NIST’s quantum science research efforts include projects within itsPhysical Measurement Laboratory that are looking at a spectrum ofpotential quantum computing hardware approaches, such assuperconducting circuits or ion trap-based quantum computing, thatcould provide viable approaches for processing and manipulatingquantum information. By working across multiple approaches, NIST

64Federally funded research and development centers are government-funded entities that have long-term relationships with one or more federal agencies to perform research and development and related tasks. These centers are typically entirely federally funded, or nearly so, but they are operated by contractors or other nongovernmental organizations. For past GAO work on these centers, see, for example, GAO, Federally Funded Research Centers: Agency Reviews of Employee Compensation and Center Performance, GAO-14-593 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 11, 2014). 65DOE issued a report summarizing the input it received from stakeholders during its February 2017 workshop. See Department of Energy, ASCR Report on a Quantum Computing Testbed (Washington, D.C.: February 2017).

Lincoln Laboratory’s Quantum Computing Laboratory The Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Lincoln Laboratory is a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the Department of Defense that researches and develops a broad array of advanced technologies to meet critical national security needs. In the area of quantum information science, researchers with Lincoln Laboratory’s Quantum Computing Laboratory are exploring the fundamentally different ways that information can be stored and manipulated through quantum physics. Specifically, Lincoln Laboratory researchers are working to develop and scale up two systems that could comprise the quantum bits, or “qubits” of a quantum computer. In one method, called Josephson junction-based superconducting circuits, Lincoln Laboratory researchers are using cryogenic dilution refrigerators and microwave test and measurement equipment to control and measure superconducting qubits at extremely cold temperatures. In another method, researchers are using cryogenically cooled vacuum systems to house micro-fabricated chips that trap individual strontium and calcium ions, which are manipulated using lasers and other electromagnetic fields. For both methods, researchers are working to scale up systems of qubits to a size large enough to address real computational problems. Laser light manipulation of trapped ion qubits at Lincoln Laboratory.

Source: Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Lincoln Laboratory. | GAO-18-656



has been able to apply different quantum hardware platforms to address computing and metrology problems, including creating one of the most advanced ion trap-based quantum computing platforms. Furthermore, NIST is using its advanced microfabrication facilities to develop a broad array of components that will enable the scaling of different quantum computing hardware platforms.

• ODNI, through the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity’s(IARPA) Logical Qubits Program, is supporting research to overcomethe limitations of current multi-qubit systems, whereby qubits areimpacted by other qubits, environmental factors, and other forces,which can generate errors in quantum computing operations. IARPA’sLogical Qubits Program is sponsoring research teams to build qubitstructures with reduced susceptibility to these types of problems andhas developed a quantum system with between 10 and 20 qubits.

• NSF supports research related to quantum computing hardware aspart of a broader portfolio of research under its Computing andCommunication Foundations Division, which supports research thatexplores the foundations of computing and communications devicesand their usage, including advancing hardware designs for computersand computational sciences, among other focus areas. For example,under the division’s Expeditions in Computing program, whichprovides financial assistance awards of up to $10 million over 5 years,NSF provided an award for the Enabling Practical-Scale QuantumComputation project in 2018. This project is a multi-institution,university-based effort to build a 100-qubit computer.

Agency officials, stakeholders, and experts said one area in which a quantum computer could offer potential benefits over a classical computer is solving optimization problems. However, using a quantum computer for this or other applications requires developing software to, for example, translate algorithms into the steps to manipulate qubits to perform computing operations. Among the six agencies that support quantum computing research, examples of agencies’ efforts to support research to develop software necessary to operate a quantum computer include the following:

• DOD’s Air Force Research Laboratory issued a multi-year fundingopportunity announcement for research on Quantum ComputingSciences with a focus on quantum computing algorithmicimplementation and problem solving. Among other potential researchtopics, the Air Force is seeking research proposals to develop newalgorithms to help solve optimization and machine learning problems.

Software Development


• NASA’s Advanced Supercomputing Division provides funding for theQuantum Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. Through this effort, NASAhosts a 2,031-qubit D-Wave 2000 quantum device. NASA researchersare using this system to explore the potential for quantum computersto tackle optimization problems that are difficult or impossible fortraditional supercomputers to handle and to explore the softwarealgorithms that would be needed to do so.

In fiscal year 2017, 10 agencies—DOD, DHS, DOE, EPA, HHS, ODNI, NASA, NIST, NSF, and USDA—supported synthetic biology research, and 6 of these agencies reported a combined total of at least $211.2 million in obligations toward those efforts. According to one agency official and experts, although synthetic biology has advanced significantly, foundational understanding is still needed in some key areas, including measurement and tool development. Accordingly, synthetic biology research that federal agencies supported included research to advance foundational understanding of the science, and the application of synthetic biology in specific areas, such as bioengineering, genome editing, national security, and biofuels and bioproduct development.

One agency official and experts said that although synthetic biology research has made advances, additional foundational work is needed to move the area forward. For example, better measurements are needed in the area of synthetic biology and would be particularly useful for genome-editing methods. Among the 10 agencies that support synthetic biology research, officials from NASA, NIST, DOE, HHS (specifically, the National Institutes of Health (NIH)), and NSF said their agencies support research to advance foundational understanding of synthetic biology. Examples of federal efforts in this area include the following:

Ten Agencies Support Research in Synthetic Biology

Foundational Understanding of Synthetic Biology


• NIST supports foundational synthetic biology research by developingmeasurement solutions, serving as a neutral ground for the discussionof underpinning measurements and other manufacturing needs, andleading and contributing to the development of standards. NISTmeasurement infrastructure includes the development of enablingtools, methods, and protocols; bioinformatics and modeling tools; anddocumentary standards and reference materials. NIST also leadsseveral consortia to work with measurement stakeholders andpartners to accelerate breakthroughs in genomics and syntheticbiology. These include NIST’s Genome in a Bottle consortium and theJoint Initiative for Metrology in Biology.66

• DOE supports foundational research related to synthetic biology aspart of a broader portfolio of research under the Biological andEnvironmental Research (BER) Genomic Science program, whichseeks to understand how genomic information is translated tofunctional capabilities, enabling more confident redesign of microbesand plants for sustainable biofuel production, improved carbonstorage, or contaminant bioremediation. Within BER, DOE funds theJoint Genome Institute to produce high-throughput sequencing, a fastmethod of determining the order of bases of genetic material,synthesis and analysis in support of BER’s bioenergy andenvironmental missions. Research enabled through this user facilityincludes developing renewable and sustainable sources of biofuelsfrom plant biomass and exploring the biological processes controllinggreenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere.

• Within HHS, multiple NIH institutes and centers support foundationalresearch involving synthetic biology techniques, including NIHCommon Fund support for research to understand and combatantibiotic resistance and National Cancer Institute support forresearch into new cancer immunotherapy methods. Additionally, theNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering hasprovided grants to researchers studying or using a multitude ofsynthetic biology techniques for applications, such as improving stemcell quality for biomedicine.

• NSF funds an estimated $60 million a year in foundational syntheticbiology research across several directorates. For example, in 2013,NSF awarded a 5-year, $10 million Expeditions in Computing grant for

66The Joint Institute for Metrology in Biology is a collaboration among NIST, Stanford University, and industry partners to foster the innovation of standards-based measurement to facilitate translation of breakthroughs in genomics and synthetic biology.

Genome in a Bottle The Genome in a Bottle consortium is one of several ongoing collaborations among the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Stanford University, and other partners in the Joint Initiative for Metrology in Biology. The initiative focuses on measurements and standards supporting the newest developments in genomics and synthetic biology. The Genome in a Bottle consortium focuses on genome sequencing, which involves determining the chemical building blocks of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) or ribonucleic acid (RNA) and can give insights into the genes carried by an individual and how and when they are activated. Since the completion of the Human Genome Project in 2003 that first sequenced the whole genome of a human, scientists have worked to make whole human genome sequencing faster and less expensive. The consortium aims to develop the tools needed to ensure the accuracy of human genome sequencing. These tools include reference materials, standards, and data to enable the translation of whole human genome sequencing to clinical practice. Illustration of a chromosome inside a bottle.

Sources: Joint Initiative for Metrology in Biology, the National Institutes of Health, and GAO (text); Genome in a Bottle consortium (image). | GAO-18-656


a multi-university effort led by the California Institute of Technology to enable theoretical investigations in several synthetic biology-related topic areas. In 2016, NSF awarded a second 5-year, $10 million Expeditions in Computing grant for a multi-university effort led by Boston University to support synthetic biology research.

Applications of synthetic biology in the field of bioengineering may lead to transformational technological advances in areas such as medicine and energy production, according to agency officials, experts, and literature.67 Among the 10 agencies that support synthetic biology research, officials from DOD, NASA, EPA, NSF, and NIH said their agencies support synthetic biology research related to bioengineering applications. Examples of federal efforts in this area include the following:

• DOD’s DARPA is leveraging biotechnologies, such as syntheticbiology, to develop new organisms with unprecedented behaviors andcapabilities. DARPA’s Living Foundries program funds researcherswho are developing the techniques and tools to reprogram livingorganisms to produce chemicals that would be useful across DODand to produce a wide variety of chemical compounds that are noteasily produced through traditional chemicals. DARPA’s goal for theprogram is to use organisms to make 1,000 molecules and materialprecursors spanning a wide range of defense-relevant applications. Inaddition, DOD’s Applied Research for the Advancement of Scienceand Technology Priorities program on Synthetic Biology for MilitaryEnvironments supports collaborative cross-service synthetic biologyresearch to position DOD to meet unique defense needs and thespecific challenges presented by military environments. A key focus ofthe program is developing several environmental “chassis” microbesthat will provide robust performance outside the lab environment.Researchers are also developing applications such as living (self-healing) materials, rugged field-deployable sensors for chemicals andother threats, and microbiome regulation/manipulation for enhancedhuman performance.

• NASA supports synthetic biology research in the field ofbioengineering to increase the capability and reduce the risk of spaceexploration, and as a tool to advance hypothesis driven investigation.NASA’s Advanced Exploration Systems and Game Changing

67We define bioengineering as the application of principles and techniques from engineering to biological systems.

Bioengineering


Development programs are developing on-demand nutrients from microbes engineered to produce targeted nutrients for human consumption as well as examining how to manipulate certain types of bacteria to produce lightweight construction tools and materials.

• EPA employs synthetic biology approaches through its ChemicalSafety for Sustainability Research Program, which seeks to developnew prediction techniques, pioneer the use of innovative technologiesfor chemical toxicity testing, and design tools to advance themanagement of chemical risks. For example, researchers aredeveloping virtual tissues by building complex computer models forbiological development. According to an EPA publication, the modelswill help reduce dependence on animal study data and provide fasterchemical risk assessments.

• NSF’s Science and Technology Center Program’s Center for CellularConstruction seeks to develop tools to predict, design, and test theimpact on cellular function of changes to cells’ internal organization.The center will also develop living “bioreactors” that will generateproducts of commercial value. NSF has funded research into bacterialimmunity, which led to the development of clustered regularlyinterspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)-Cas9—a technologythat allows researchers to precisely edit genes.68

• Several NIH institutes and centers support research related tobioengineering. For example, NIH’s Synthetic Biology for EngineeringApplications Funding Opportunity Announcement solicits applicationsto support research to advance the understanding and application ofsynthetic biology for human health. In addition, NIH institutes andcenters have supported research across various areas, includingengineering synthetic receptor systems and genetic controller circuits,engineering microbes as therapeutic platforms, and developingenabling technologies for human-machine hybrid tissues.

68NIH-funded research has also been instrumental to the discovery, understanding, and continued development and application to human health of technologies employed in synthetic biology research such as CRISPR-Cas9 and other gene editing tools.

Gene Editing The National Institutes of Health (NIH) describes gene editing as a group of technologies that give scientists the ability to add, remove, or alter genetic material at particular locations in the genome. One such technology is known as CRISPR-Cas9, which is short for clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats and CRISPR-associated protein 9. According to NIH, the CRISPR-Cas9 system has generated excitement in the scientific community because it is faster, cheaper, more accurate, and more efficient than other existing gene editing methods. The system was adapted from a naturally occurring gene editing system that helps bacteria defend themselves against viruses by targeting the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) of the virus. In the lab, CRISPR-Cas9 allows researchers to cut out a specific sequence of DNA from cells. Once researchers cut out the targeted DNA sequence, they can use other techniques to add or delete genetic material. These genetic changes can cause the edited cells to express new physical traits, such as eye color, or change their disease risk. Gene editing is being applied to research on many diseases; however, according to NIH, there are still significant technical barriers to using gene editing therapies to treat human diseases. Further, the use of gene editing raises a number of ethical concerns. An illustration of a chromosome unravelling to show the DNA that makes up individual genes.

Sources: NIH (text); U.S. Department of Energy (image). | GAO-18-656


Application of synthetic biology may support U.S. national security efforts by aiding with monitoring for biological or conventional threats, and strengthening the resilience of soldiers in combat. Among the 10 agencies that support synthetic biology research, officials from DOD, ODNI, and DHS said their agencies support synthetic biology research with potential national security applications. Examples of federal efforts in this area include the following:

• DOD’s Office of Naval Research funds research to extend the naturalcapabilities of living organisms such as microbes and plants to createsystems that will provide new naval capabilities, according to theoffice’s website. Office of Naval Research officials told us the office isfunding ongoing research related to engineering gut microbes in orderto enhance the resilience of service members to deploymentstressors, among other things. In addition, DARPA’s Safe GenesProject supports force protection and military health and readiness byprotecting service members from accidental or intentional misuse ofgenome-editing technologies. For example, researchers aredeveloping the genetic circuitry and genome-editing machinery forrobust, spatial, temporal, and reversible control of genome-editingactivity in living systems.

• ODNI supports synthetic biology research through efforts includingIARPA’s Functional Genomic and Computational Assessment ofThreats program, which supports research to protect against criticalthreats related to pathogens and other biological threats. Researchersaim to develop better approaches and tools for characterization andanalysis of biological threats based on gene function.

• DHS’s Biological Threat Characterization program and its BiodefenseKnowledge Center program support synthetic biology research tounderstand the risks associated with the technologies useful forsynthetic biology and the harmful pathogens that may be created bythose who wish to do harm.69

Synthetic biology is being used to develop cost-effective methods for producing biofuels and bioproducts according to agency officials, experts,

69The Biological Threat Characterization program conducts experiments and studies to better understand biological vulnerabilities and hazards. The Biodefense Knowledge Center is a DHS Science and Technology center that produces assessments and tools that help the homeland security community better understand scientific trends that may be exploited by adversaries bent on developing biological weapons or executing biological terrorism.

National Security

Biofuels and Bioproducts


and DOE’s website.70 Among the 10 agencies that support synthetic biology research, officials from DOE and USDA said their agencies support synthetic biology research related to biofuels development applications. Examples of federal efforts in this area include the following:

• DOE officials told us that the Office of Energy Efficiency andRenewable Energy’s Bioenergy Technologies Office manages theConversion Program and the Advanced Algal Systems Program, bothof which employ synthetic biology techniques to accomplish officegoals. Within the Conversion Program, DOE funds the AgileBioFoundry to help develop and transition synthetic biology tools fromthe laboratory to the biofuels and bioproducts industry. The programaccomplishes this through targeted research and developmentpartnerships with industry and academia, as well as by developingintegrated synthetic biology tools designed to speed upbiomanufacturing. In addition, the office funds the Advanced AlgalSystems Program, which supports early-stage applied research toapply synthetic biology approaches to alternative fuels that use algaeas their source, among other things. According to a DOE website, thisindustry has the capability of producing billions of gallons per year ofrenewable diesel, gasoline, and jet fuel.

• USDA, through the Agricultural Research Service, led a collaborativeproject between federal, industry, and academic researchers toproduce a commercial rubber-based tire using the guayule plant, asmall shrub native to the United States that has been considered apossible alternative source of natural rubber.

Nonfederal research to advance quantum computing includes efforts to address existing hardware and software challenges. We identified a variety of nonfederal entities, such as universities and private companies, that have ongoing efforts aimed at building a quantum computer. Stakeholders we spoke to told us that private companies have been increasing their research in quantum computing.

70According to the Department of Energy, biofuels are liquid, solid, or gaseous fuel derived from renewable biomass. Biological materials can be used to produce such fuels as biodiesel, ethanol, methanol, methane, and hydrogen. Bioproducts are materials derived from renewable feedstocks. Examples include paper, ethanol, and palm oil.

Nonfederal Entities Support Research in Quantum Computing


Academic and industry stakeholders we interviewed described various efforts to develop the hardware needed for a quantum computer. Examples of ongoing efforts include the following:

• Academic researchers at Purdue University partner with Microsoft atStation Q-Purdue to perform a variety of experiments and activitiesrelated to building a semiconductor-based quantum computer,including testing different hardware designs.71

• Academic researchers from Yale’s Quantum Institute are working todevelop scalable superconducting devices.

• Researchers at IonQ are working to develop general-purposequantum information processors using a trapped-ion approach tocreate a quantum computer that is scalable and that could support abroad array of applications across a variety of industries.

• A Google official told us that the company has been working forseveral years to build a quantum computer through the QuantumArtificial Intelligence Lab. In a March 2018 press release, Googleannounced its newest 72-qubit quantum computer, called Bristlecone.

Academic and industry stakeholders we interviewed described ongoing efforts related to software development. Examples of ongoing efforts include the following:

• An official from Microsoft said the company is working to developquantum algorithms and software to run on a quantum computer for agiven set of problems. Researchers are also currently developing anoperating system and various applications that could be run on aquantum device.

• An IBM official told us that, in 2016, the company launched theQuantum Experience, a quantum computing system with fivesuperconducting qubits on the cloud, encouraging students andresearchers worldwide to explore quantum computing. Over the pasttwo years, the system’s software has been expanded and upgradedfor greater functionality and exploration of quantum algorithms toallow researchers around the world to use the system to write more

71Microsoft’s partners include the University of California, TU Delft, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Sydney, Purdue University, University of Maryland, ETH Zurich, and other institutions around the world.

Hardware Development

Software Development


than 80 research publications. MIT and many other universities now use the Quantum Experience in their curricula.

We identified a variety of nonfederal entities, such as universities and private companies, that conduct research in synthetic biology to advance foundational understanding and develop new products.

Nonfederal stakeholders we interviewed described efforts to advance synthetic biology through activities they initiated as well as through efforts they led with support from federal and industry partners. These efforts include the following:

• The International Genetically Engineered Machine (iGEM) Foundationhosts an annual worldwide synthetic biology competition in Boston,the iGEM Giant Jamboree. The competition attracts teams fromaround the world (primarily university students) to use standardizedgenetic parts to address real-world problems in fields including health,medicine, manufacturing, and bioenergy.

• At MIT’s Synthetic Biology Center, researchers work with federal andindustry partners to advance understanding of synthetic biology forgenetic programming, DNA synthesis, and genome design.Researchers at the Synthetic Biology Center seek to create aprogramming language for living cells that is similar to languagesused to program computers and robots.

Nonfederal Entities Support Research in Synthetic Biology

Foundational Understanding of Synthetic Biology

The iGEM Foundation The International Genetically Engineered Machine (iGEM) Foundation is an independent, non-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of synthetic biology, education and competition, and the development of an open community and collaboration. The foundation does these by fostering an open, cooperative community and friendly competition. The main iGEM program is the iGEM competition, which began in January 2003 as an independent study course at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in which students developed biological devices to manipulate cells. This course became a summer competition with 5 teams in 2004, grew to 13 teams in 2005, and had expanded to 310 teams by 2017, reaching more than 40 countries. The competition was originally aimed at college students but has expanded to include high school students and others. The iGEM competition gives students the opportunity to push the boundaries of synthetic biology by tackling everyday issues facing the world. Multidisciplinary teams made up of primarily university students work together to design, build, test, and measure a system of their own design using interchangeable biological parts and standard molecular biology techniques. Every year nearly 6,000 people dedicate their summer to iGEM and then come together in the fall to present their work and compete at the annual Jamboree. A picture of the iGEM logo.

Sources: iGem Foundation (text); iGem Foundation and Justin Knight (image). | GAO-18-656


Industry stakeholders we interviewed described various efforts to develop new products and technologies based on synthetic biology, such as biosensors, new data storage technologies, and bioengineering techniques. These efforts include the following:

• IBM researchers are developing biosensors that may be used for theearly detection of cancer. They are also working on understandingand analyzing cardiac, neurological, and mental health conditions.

• Researchers from Microsoft said the company is conducting researchrelated to data storage using synthetic DNA as the informationpreservation medium. This storage technology uses a process bywhich custom sequences of synthetic DNA are manufactured to storeinformation.

• Ginkgo Bioworks officials said the company is focused on trying to de-risk supply chains and improve supply chain management through synthetic biology approaches. To that end, the company designs custom enzymes for a variety of customers including companies in a wide range of industries such as food and fragrance companies.

• The Energy Biosciences Institute is a partnership among the University of California, DOE’s Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, and the University of Illinois. Researchers at the Energy Biosciences Institute carry out research in the areas of biofuels, carbon sequestration, and sustainable chemicals productions, among other things.

Development of New Products and Technologies

DNA Storage To facilitate storing an ever-increasing amount of digital data, researchers from Microsoft, in collaboration with the University of Washington, are studying the use of synthetic deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) as a means of storing data. According to a Microsoft researcher, this technology uses a process by which custom sequences of synthetic DNA are produced or manufactured to store information. The researcher described three main advantages of storing data in DNA as compared to the current means of storing data, generally magnetic and optical media: Density. DNA may allow for the storage of up

to 1 exabyte (one quintillion bytes) of data per cubic millimeter. In comparison, according to Microsoft, storing similarly large volumes of data in optical discs would occupy significant physical space.

Durability. Data could be stored in DNA for thousands of years, according to one Microsoft researcher.

Relevance. DNA would always remain a relevant storage mechanism, unlike other means of storing digital data (e.g., floppy discs), which becomes outdated as technology advances.

Source: Microsoft. | GAO-18-656


Agency officials we interviewed said they coordinate on quantum computing and synthetic biology research through a range of efforts, but we found that certain efforts are new and that agencies have not fully implemented selected leading practices for collaboration in these efforts. Agency officials told us they use means of coordination ranging from attending ad hoc meetings, such as conferences or workshops, to participating in ongoing interagency groups, such as interagency groups on quantum information science (QIS) and synthetic biology. However, we found that new interagency groups on QIS and synthetic biology have not fully implemented leading practices that can enhance and sustain collaborative efforts.

Agency officials said that they coordinate on quantum computing and synthetic biology research by attending ad hoc meetings, as well as through ongoing efforts such as participating in interagency working groups. The means of coordinating that officials most frequently cited were participating in working groups or attending a conference or workshop. Meetings such as these bring together representatives of different agencies or departments to discuss common problems, exchange information, or develop agreements on issues of mutual interest, as we have reported in the past.72 Specifically:

• Officials from 4 of the 6 agencies that support quantum computingresearch said they attended a conference or workshop related toquantum computing at some point from October 2015 through March2018. For example, NASA and DOE officials participated in a 2017NASA workshop that brought together experts from NASA researchcenters, DOE national laboratories, academia, and industry to discussquantum information science and computation.73

• Officials from all 10 agencies that support synthetic biology researchcited attendance at a conference, and officials from 7 of these 10 citedworkshops as a way in which they coordinated on synthetic biologyresearch from October 2015 through March 2018. For example,officials from DOD, DOE, NIST, and national laboratories attended a

72GAO, Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms, GAO-12-1022 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2012). 73NASA hosted the Quantum Computing for Aerospace and Engineering workshop on Nov. 7-8, 2017, in Suffolk, Virginia.

Agencies Coordinate Research through a Range of Efforts, but Interagency Groups Have Not Fully Implemented Selected Leading Practices

Agencies Coordinate on Quantum Computing and Synthetic Biology Research Using Efforts That Range from Ad Hoc Meetings to Ongoing Interagency Groups



4-day conference in June 2017 to discuss synthetic biologyapplications in genetic engineering.74

• Officials from 7 of the 10 agencies that support synthetic biologyresearch also said they coordinated research with other selectedagencies through communities of practice or consortia that meet onan ad hoc basis. For example, NASA officials said they supportsynthetic biology work through the Space Technology ResearchInstitute in Biomanufacturing, a University of California Berkeley-ledconsortium of universities.

Officials we interviewed also said they coordinate with one another through ongoing efforts, such as interagency groups. For example, on June 21, 2018, NSTC established the Subcommittee on Quantum Information Science (QIS Subcommittee) to coordinate quantum computing research.75 According to its June 2018 charter, the QIS Subcommittee’s purpose is to establish and maintain a national agenda in quantum information science and technology, expand U.S. economic and national security, and coordinate federal quantum information science and technology policy and programs. The functions of the QIS Subcommittee include to

• issue and update plan(s) that coordinate(s) federal policy to expandU.S. leadership in quantum information science and technology;

• enable stakeholders to invest effectively in quantum informationscience and technology and post-quantum application spaces throughdata gathering, analysis, consultation, planning, convening, andreporting; and

• provide a forum for research and development coordination andcollaboration, including sharing expertise and best practices forprogram management and conducting joint workshops and programreviews.

74The Synthetic Biology: Engineering, Evolution and Design conference was held in Vancouver, British Columbia, in June 2017. 75The Subcommittee on Quantum Information Science is under NSTC’s Committee on Science.


The QIS Subcommittee is led by co-chairs from NIST, DOE, NSF, and OSTP and includes 9 additional agencies.76 The QIS Subcommittee met for the first time as an official chartered group on June 28, 2018. The OSTP official serving as a co-chair for the QIS Subcommittee said that the group’s first priority will likely be to develop a national approach to QIS research and development.

Officials from 5 of the 6 agencies that support quantum computing research said that prior to the formation of the QIS Subcommittee, they coordinated through the NSTC Interagency Working Group on Quantum Information Science (QIS working group), which was formed in 2014.77 In July 2016, the QIS working group produced a report, which the agency officials serving as the group’s co-chairs told us included its strategic plan for federal QIS research.78 The July 2016 report identified QIS as a priority for federal coordination and investment as a component of U.S. scientific leadership, national security, and economic competitiveness. The QIS Subcommittee co-chair from OSTP said that the shift from a working group to a subcommittee is a significant elevation that communicates the importance of QIS to the administration.

Agencies also coordinated synthetic biology research through interagency working groups. Officials from NSF and USDA told us that, in December 2017, they formed a new synthetic biology working group that had 7

76The QIS Subcommittee’s member agencies include DOD, DOE, DHS, Department of the Interior, HHS, NASA, NIST, NSF, National Security Agency, ODNI, Department of State, and USDA. Members also include the Office of Management and Budget and OSTP from the Executive Office of the President. 77The following agencies were members in the QIS working group: DOD, DOE, DHS, NIST, NSF, National Security Agency, and ODNI. The Office of Management and Budget, OSTP, and National Security Staff from the Executive Office of the President were also members. NASA was not a member until 2018, according to agency officials. The QIS working group was preceded by the NSTC Committee on Technology’s Subcommittee on Quantum Information Science, which was tasked with developing a vision for federal QIS research. This committee produced the report, A Federal Vision for Quantum Information Science (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 5, 2009). 78National Science and Technology Council, Advancing Quantum Information Science.


member agencies as of February 2018.79 These officials said that the participating agencies saw a need for continued communication and information sharing, and the officials said the group’s efforts will increase coordination. Prior to the formation of this new group, 7 of the 10 agencies that support synthetic biology research participated in an NSTC Synthetic Biology Working Group that NSF officials said existed from 2012 to 2013 and was co-chaired by DOD and DOE,80 according to a 2013 DOE report to Congress that the group produced.81 According to some officials, the working group ended after it produced this report, which described synthetic biology research and development needs at the time and identified which federal agencies were planning synthetic biology research. The report also discussed the need for communication and coordination among federal agencies that support basic and applied synthetic biology research to build synergies, consider new research and development needs, and evaluate issues as they emerge. According to a senior NSF official we interviewed who was helping lead efforts to establish the new group, one of its first undertakings will be to update the 2013 report to provide a roadmap for agencies’ synthetic biology research. However, the official also stated that the participating agencies were still considering the new group’s activities.

79Officials from USDA and NSF said that, in addition to their agencies, the working group includes representatives from DOD, DHS, DOE, ODNI, NASA, and OSTP. According to DOD and NSF officials, some member agencies first met in September 2017 to discuss the group. Officials from DHS and EPA also cited the Technical Working Group on Security Risks Associated with Applications Enabled by Advances in Genome Editing and Synthesis Technologies and Other Related Enabling Technologies, chaired by DHS, HHS and OSTP, as a working group through which synthetic biology was discussed in the context of security risks. 80According to a DOD official, after the synthetic biology working group ended, officials from several agencies participated in quarterly phone calls from 2014 through 2015 to discuss synthetic biology programs. 81Department of Energy, Synthetic Biology Report to Congress (Washington, D.C.: July 2013). The interagency Synthetic Biology Working Group was created in response to a Congressional directive to develop a comprehensive plan for federally supported synthetic biology research and development activities. The 7 agencies involved in this working group were USDA, Commerce, DOD, DOE, HHS, NASA, and NSF.


By recently establishing the QIS Subcommittee and a synthetic biology working group, NSTC and federal agencies, respectively, took steps to further coordination on quantum computing and synthetic biology research. However, the new subcommittee and working group have not fully implemented leading practices for collaboration.82

We have reported that effective collaboration can help reduce or better manage fragmentation, overlap, and duplication of federal programs.83 As described above, a number of federal agencies support research related to quantum computing and synthetic biology. In our April 2015 guide to evaluating and managing fragmentation, overlap, and duplication, we define fragmentation as those circumstances in which more than one federal agency, or organization within an agency, is involved in the same broad area of national need, and opportunities exist to improve service delivery.84 This definition applies concerning federal agencies’ quantum computing and synthetic biology research, with more than one agency involved in the same broad area of national need. However, as shown in our description above of the agencies’ support for research in these two areas, agencies’ activities sometimes differ in meaningful ways or leverage the efforts of other agencies.

We examined agencies’ efforts to coordinate through interagency groups by selecting six leading practices that we have previously identified can enhance and sustain interagency collaboration:85

• Define and articulate a common outcome. Effective collaborationrequires agencies to define and articulate common outcomes or

82GAO-06-15 defines collaboration broadly as any joint activity that is intended to produce more public value than could be produced when the agencies act alone. 83GAO, Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication: An Evaluation and Management Guide, GAO-15-49SP (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 14, 2015). GAO-15-49SP defines overlap as when multiple agencies or programs have similar goals, engage in similar activities or strategies to achieve them, or target similar beneficiaries. GAO-15-49SP defines duplication as instances when 2 or more agencies or programs are engaged in the same activities or provide the same services to the same beneficiaries. 84GAO-15-49SP. 85GAO-06-15. Because we focused our review on activities of the interagency groups and not on the individual agencies, we excluded from our review two key practices related to reinforcing agency accountability and individual accountability for collaborative efforts.

Agencies Are Coordinating on Quantum Computing and Synthetic Biology through New Interagency Groups, But Have Not Fully Implemented Leading Collaboration Practices








purposes they are seeking to achieve that are consistent with their respective agencies’ goals and missions.

• Establish mutually reinforcing or joint strategies. Having mutuallyreinforcing or joint strategies enables agencies to align activities, coreprocesses, and resources to achieve a common outcome.

• Identify and address needs by leveraging resources. Agenciescan sustain their collaborative efforts by identifying the human,information technology, physical, and financial resources necessary toachieve identified outcomes.

• Agree on roles and responsibilities. By defining and agreeing onroles and responsibilities, including leadership, collaborating agenciescan better clarify who will do what, organize their joint and individualefforts, and facilitate decision making.

• Establish compatible policies, procedures, and other means tooperate across agency boundaries. Agencies can facilitatecollaboration by addressing the compatibility of standards, policies,procedures, and data systems that will be used in the collaborativeeffort.

• Develop mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on results.Creating the means to monitor and evaluate collaborative effortsenables agencies to identify areas for improvement.

We identified limitations in agencies’ past efforts to coordinate quantum computing and synthetic biology research. In the area of quantum computing, the QIS working group—which preceded the subcommittee—took steps to implement selected leading practices for collaboration, but the group did not fully implement these practices. For example, the QIS working group’s July 2016 report broadly identified quantum computing research needs but did not identify common outcomes for agencies’ collaborative efforts to advance QIS, including quantum computing. The three senior officials who served as co-chairs of the QIS working group said they were not aware of any federal goals or outcomes for quantum computing research, and DOE officials said that clarifying common goals could help interagency collaboration on quantum computing research. Officials from some agencies cited challenges with collaborating on joint quantum computing projects—for instance, because of variations among agencies on time frames for providing financial assistance.

OSTP officials described the establishment of the QIS Subcommittee as an effort to further previous coordination conducted through the QIS working group. While the QIS Subcommittee has taken initial steps to


implement certain leading practices for collaboration, it has not fully implemented the relevant leading collaboration practices we identified. For example, by developing a charter that identifies its high-level purpose and functions and that identifies co-chairs for the group, the QIS Subcommittee has taken initial steps to identify some agencies’ roles and to establish means for operating across agency boundaries. Moreover, by having a charter signed by senior officials, the QIS Subcommittee has taken steps to document agencies’ agreement to collaborate, which is a key feature of collaborative mechanisms we have identified in our prior work.86 However, the working group has not defined roles and responsibilities for agencies other than the co-chairs. OSTP officials said that efforts to date have focused on ensuring that all relevant agencies are included in the QIS Subcommittee; the officials also said that agencies’ roles and responsibilities for contributing to the subcommittee will evolve.87 Table 1 provides additional information on the extent to which the QIS Subcommittee has implemented leading practices for collaboration.

86GAO-12-1022. 87Ensuring that all relevant agencies are included is another key feature of collaborative mechanisms we identified in GAO-12-1022.




Table 1: Extent of Implementation of Selected Leading Practices for Collaboration by the Quantum Information Science (QIS) Subcommittee, as of June 2018

Leading collaboration practice Status of QIS Subcommittee efforts Define and articulate a common outcome • QIS Subcommittee charter identifies the subcommittee’s high-level purpose

and functions.• Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) officials said the

subcommittee has not yet determined whether it will define and articulatecommon outcomes as part of an effort to develop a long-term plan to addressQIS challenges.

Establish mutually reinforcing or joint strategies • OSTP officials said a first step will be to develop a national approach and plan for QIS research and development.

Identify and address needs by leveraging resources

• OSTP officials said a main goal is to coordinate the agencies’ efforts and workthrough the agencies to achieve goals.

Agree on roles and responsibilities • QIS Subcommittee charter identifies certain agencies as co-chairs for thegroup.

• Other member agencies’ roles and responsibilities have not been identified, asof June 2018.

• OSTP officials said that agencies’ roles and responsibilities are still evolving.Establish compatible policies, procedures, and other means to operate across agency boundaries

• QIS Subcommittee charter outlines the purpose and scope of thesubcommittee, its functions and membership, the potential for seeking privatesector advice as needed, and the subcommittee’s termination date.

• Specific policies and procedures for collaborating across agency boundarieshave not been established, as of June 2018.

Develop mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on results

• QIS Subcommittee charter states that one function of the group includesreporting.a

• OSTP officials said that no particular mechanism has been identified, as ofJune 2018.

Source: GAO analysis of information provided by OSTP officials. | GAO-18-656 aAccording to the QIS Subcommittee charter, this function is: Enable stakeholders to invest effectively in quantum information science and technology and post-quantum application spaces through data gathering, analysis, consultation, planning, convening, and reporting.


With regard to interagency coordination on synthetic biology research, NSF and USDA officials noted that the new synthetic biology working group hoped to, through continued communication and information sharing, address limitations in agencies’ coordination that existed prior to its formation. Officials from NSF said the group was needed for communication, information sharing and to leverage resources and DOD officials agreed that the working group was needed. Additionally, one DOD official and one expert said that limited interagency coordination had resulted in lost opportunities to further develop the area of synthetic biology. They also noted that having a national strategy for synthetic biology would be beneficial. Other officials noted that, as in the area of quantum computing, differences in funding timeframes across agencies hinder their ability to coordinate their synthetic biology research. Some of these officials also said such differences make it difficult to develop an integrative roadmap for their research.

Like the QIS Subcommittee, the new synthetic biology working group has taken initial steps to implement some leading practices for interagency collaboration but has not fully implemented the relevant leading collaboration practices we have identified. For example, the group has taken initial steps to identify member agencies’ roles by having NSF serve as the lead agency for the first 2 years. However, the group has not identified other member agencies’ roles and responsibilities. An NSF official said the new working group had also considered developing a document, such as a charter, to guide its efforts but, as of June 2018, it had not yet decided whether to do so. Table 2 provides additional information on the extent to which the Synthetic Biology Working Group has implemented leading practices for collaboration.


Table 2: Extent of Implementation of Selected Leading Practices for Collaboration by the Synthetic Biology Working Group, as of June 2018

Leading collaboration practice Status of Synthetic Biology Working Group efforts Define and articulate a common outcome

• National Science Foundation (NSF) officials said the working group will include aroadmap for agencies’ synthetic biology research in an update of a 2013 reportto Congress on synthetic biology.

• NSF officials said there is no time frame for producing the update to the 2013report.

Establish mutually reinforcing or joint strategies

• NSF officials said the group will update a 2013 report to Congress on syntheticbiology that will provide visibility into what is in each agency’s portfolio and lookfor opportunities to collaborate.

Identify and address needs by leveraging resources

• NSF officials said the group will update a 2013 report to Congress on syntheticbiology, which will enable agencies to identify where they can collaborate toadvance the field.

Agree on roles and responsibilities • NSF identified as the lead agency for the first 2 years.• Roles of member agencies other than NSF have not been identified, as of June

2018.• Some member agencies have taken responsibility for drafting sections of a

report that will update a 2013 report to Congress on synthetic biology.• Other responsibilities have not been identified, as of June 2018.

Establish compatible policies, procedures, and other means to operate across agency boundaries

• No steps taken to establish policies, procedures, or means to operate acrossagency boundaries, as of June 2018.

Develop mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on results

• No steps taken to develop mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report onresults, as of June 2018.

Source: GAO analysis of information provided by NSF officials. | GAO-18-656

As we previously reported, interagency collaborative mechanisms can take many different forms, such as working groups or subcommittees, and the leading practices we identified that help enhance and sustain interagency collaboration can be adapted to help address the specific challenges agencies face.88 For example, incorporating the leading practices into agencies’ collaborative efforts can help address issues associated with potential fragmentation, overlap, and duplication in instances where multiple agencies have activities in a similar area. The QIS Subcommittee and the synthetic biology working group are mechanisms through which agencies can address limitations in past interagency coordination on quantum computing and synthetic biology. However, as of July 2018, the subcommittee and working group were still new and have had limited time to fully implement the leading practices we have identified. As the subcommittee and the working group move

88GAO-06-15.



forward, by taking steps to fully implement these leading practices, member agencies could better marshal their collective efforts to support research in the areas of quantum computing and synthetic biology and help maintain U.S. competitiveness through transformational technological advances.

Experts who participated in the meeting we convened with the assistance of the National Academies identified four key considerations for maintaining U.S. competitiveness through transformational technological advances. These considerations extend beyond quantum computing and synthetic biology, and more broadly address the role of federal and nonfederal entities in supporting research for such advances. The key considerations experts identified were (1) developing a strategic approach for transformational technology, (2) fostering information sharing, (3) focusing on technology development and commercialization, and (4) strengthening the science and technology workforce.89

Experts emphasized the importance of developing a strategic approach for advancing potentially transformational technologies for maintaining U.S. competitiveness.

Experts explained that there are multiple methods for strategic approaches and one of these experts explained that different methods can be effective for different research areas. However, experts described two key aspects of a strategic approach: (1) mechanisms to bring

89The evidence presented in this section is primarily based on GAO’s analysis of a transcript of this meeting. During the meeting, experts provided presentations, which were followed by open discussion among all meeting participants. After the end of each session, an expert summarized what was conveyed and other experts were afforded an opportunity to agree or disagree with the characterization of what was discussed. In addition, we conveyed to experts our interpretation of their statements for their input and correction. For purposes of quantifying expert remarks, we refer to a statement from an individual expert as being from one expert, and unless there is significant disagreement in the transcript of the meeting, we refer to statements from two or more experts as being from experts. In cases of significant disagreement in the transcript, we refer to statements from two to three experts as being from a few experts, and statements from four to six experts as being from some experts. We did not ask experts to come to a consensus or agreement on the topics discussed. This section also includes information from interviews with stakeholders and agency officials and other written documentation.

Experts Identified Key Considerations for Maintaining U.S. Competitiveness through Transformational Technological Advances

Developing a Strategic Approach for Transformational Technology


together potential partners such as through partnerships or consortia and (2) future-oriented technology planning such as through roadmaps orgrand challenges. We further describe these aspects below:

• Partnerships and consortia. Experts described how partnershipsand consortia provide a means of bringing together stakeholders fromacross different sectors—including the public, private, or academicsectors—to support development of transformational technologies.According to experts, partnerships and consortia can provide a meansof strategically organizing the shared resources of differentstakeholders and identifying what is needed, such as pre-competitiveresearch to develop a technology, and how that technology might beused.90 Experts noted examples of partnerships and consortia tosupport technology development:

• Manufacturing USA institutes. One expert described the 14Manufacturing USA institutes as a model for coordination and asthe largest recent U.S. technology development project.91 As wereported in April 2017, each institute is a public-private partnershipbetween a sponsoring federal agency (DOD, DOE, or Commerce)and a nonfederal entity (generally a nonprofit organization oruniversity) in charge of the institute’s operations.92 Each institute

90Pre-competitive research represents research and development activities up to the stage at which technical uncertainties are sufficiently reduced to permit preliminary assessment of a technology’s commercial potential. This stage of research occurs prior to the development of application-specific technology prototypes. 91The Manufacturing USA institutes were established after a series of reports by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. The reports’ recommendations included that the federal government establish a national network of manufacturing innovation institutes as public-private partnerships to create a manufacturing research infrastructure to help bridge the gap between research and development activities and domestic production. See, for example, President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Report to the President on Ensuring American Leadership in Advanced Manufacturing, and President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Report to the President on Capturing Domestic Competitive Advantage in Advanced Manufacturing. In 2012, at the request of the President and using existing statutory authorities, DOD, with co-funding and participation from DOE and other agencies, established a pilot manufacturing innovation institute focused on additive manufacturing. Subsequently, DOD and DOE established additional institutes using their existing statutory authorities. The Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act of 2014 called for the Secretary of Commerce to establish a Network for Manufacturing Innovation program. Pub. L. No. 113-235, § 703(2), 128 Stat. 2220, 2221 (2014) (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 278s). In September 2016, the Secretary of Commerce announced a new public name for the program, Manufacturing USA. 92See GAO-17-320.



has a technological focus, such as additive manufacturing, advanced flexible electronics, or regenerative medicine, and includes members such as companies, nonprofit organizations, academic institutions, and federal agencies.

• Semiconductor Manufacturing Technology consortium(SEMATECH). Experts described SEMATECH, a nonprofitconsortium that supported research and development onadvanced semiconductor manufacturing, as a successful,industry-led, public-private collaboration that helped governmentand industry stakeholders take a strategic approach to challengesfacing the U.S. semiconductor industry in the late 1980s.93

However, Commerce’s NIST officials noted that after federalsupport ended, SEMATECH began accepting memberships fromcompanies from competitor countries, which led to a transfer oftechnology through the consortium’s work outside the UnitedStates.94

93In prior reports, we and the National Research Council found that SEMATECH helped improve the U.S. semiconductor industry’s competitive position. See GAO, Federal Research: Lessons Learned from SEMATECH, GAO/RCED-92-283 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 28, 1992) and Charles W. Wessner, Editor, Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy, Policy and Global Affairs, National Research Council of the National Academies, Government-Industry Partnerships for the Development of New Technologies (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2002). 94NIST officials cautioned that the Manufacturing USA Institutes could face similar challenges after the initial period of federal support for the institutes ends.

Lessons Learned from the SEMATECH Consortium In the face of international competition during the 1980s, the U.S. semiconductor industry took steps to strengthen its domestic capabilities. In one such step, U.S. semiconductor companies formed the Semiconductor Manufacturing Technology (SEMATECH) consortium in 1987 to further semiconductor manufacturing technology. SEMATECH received federal financial assistance through 1996, after which its leadership chose not to solicit continued federal support because of improvement in the U.S. semiconductor industry’s competitiveness. In a September 1992 report, GAO provided lessons learned from the federal government’s participation in SEMATECH and identified several considerations for future consortia, including that they: • are industry-led and industry provides at

least half of the annual funding becauseindustry can best design a researchprogram to meet its needs;

• develop a comprehensive industryassessment and prepare an operatingplan that identifies realistic objectives andmilestones as a basis for receiving federalfunds;

• include active participation by membercompanies’ senior executives inestablishing research priorities andoverseeing technological progress;

• have a program to improve long-termworking relationships betweenmanufacturers and key suppliers, unlessinappropriate for the industry’s structure;

• emphasize research projects that improvean industry’s overall efficiency and thathave industrywide applications;

• consider ways to provide access forsmaller industry members that might nothave the resources to participate; and

• establish criteria for determining how orwhen government should end its funding.

Sources: GAO and National Research Council of the National Academies. | GAO-18-656

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/RCED-92-283


• Grand challenges, strategies, and roadmaps. Experts describedthe importance of grand challenges, strategies, and roadmaps insupporting a strategic approach to developing transformationaltechnologies.95 In particular, experts described how thesemechanisms help stakeholders coalesce around technology goals andorganize efforts toward reaching them. Examples experts notedincluded the following96:

• Brain Research through Advancing InnovativeNeurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative. Experts described theBRAIN Initiative, which was launched in 2013 to buildneuroscience measurement tools, as a key example of a grandchallenge. The BRAIN Initiative—led by HHS (specifically NIH),NSF, and DARPA, with the participation of other federal agenciesas well as foundations,97 universities, and industry—seeks todeepen understanding of the human mind and to improve howbrain disorders are treated, prevented, and cured.98

• National Nanotechnology Initiative. Experts described theNational Nanotechnology Initiative as a key example of a federalgovernment strategic effort. The National NanotechnologyInitiative began in 2000 and is an interagency effort to bringtogether the nanotechnology-related activities of 28 federalagencies in an effort to enhance understanding and control ofnanoscale material. The National Nanotechnology Initiativemaintains a strategic plan describing the initiative’s vision andgoals and the strategies to achieve these goals. In discussing this

95According to a 2015 report from the National Economic Council and OSTP, grand challenges are ambitious but achievable goals that harness science, technology, and innovation to solve important problems. See National Economic Council and Office of Science and Technology Policy, A Strategy for American Innovation (Washington, D.C.: October 2015). 96In addition to the examples provided, other initiatives, such as the Human Genome Initiative and NIH's Precision Medicine Initiative, among others, may also provide illustrative examples. 97One expert noted that foundations played a key role in promoting, convening, and creating consensus within the BRAIN Initiative. 98The BRAIN Initiative is working to develop new technologies to explore how the brain’s cells and circuits interact at the speed of thought, ultimately uncovering complex links between brain function and behavior, through the following goals: (1) accelerating the development and application of new neurotechnologies, (2) enabling researchers to produce a dynamic picture of the functioning brain, (3) exploring brain functionality, (4) linking brain function and behavior, and (5) advancing consumer applications.


initiative, experts described how it could enable federal agencies to share information on their research and ensure that key research areas are advanced in pursuit of a long-term national nanotechnology strategy.

Grand challenges may be articulated through strategy documents and, according to experts, involve getting stakeholders to think about potentially transformational technologies in a future-oriented way. Roadmaps, according to experts, represent detailed plans to guide progress toward a technology goal. Federal agencies, industry, or others may lead roadmapping efforts, according to experts. Additionally, one expert stated that roadmaps can help accelerate technology development. Another expert noted that for some fields, such as quantum computing and synthetic biology, a technology development strategy is needed in addition to a research and development strategy because the former outlines how a technology would move forward beyond the research and development phase.

Across both of these aspects of a strategic approach, experts emphasized the importance of a sustained commitment of resources to support technology development. One expert also emphasized the importance of setting tough performance objectives without specifying how innovators will solve a problem. Experts acknowledged that developing shared national strategies is challenging in the United States, in part because of the decentralized nature of research support across multiple federal agencies.99 However, experts also cited as strengths of the federal research system the ability of federal agencies to support multiple approaches to developing transformational technologies in accordance with their missions and the ability to evolve and try new approaches.100

Experts identified several indicators of when developing a strategic approach might be important to support U.S. competitiveness through transformational technological advances in a particular area. Specifically:

99One expert stated that establishing priorities as policy mandates—such as through OSTP-led initiatives or legislation—will cause federal agencies to prioritize these efforts and coordinate relevant activities. 100The National Research Council also cited the decentralized nature of the federal research system as a strength in a 2012 report. See Committee on Cooperative National Innovation Policies: Best Practice for the 21st Century; Board on Science, Technology and Economic Policy; Policy and Global Affairs, National Research Council of the National Academies, Rising to the Challenge: U.S. Innovation Policy for the Global Economy (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2012).


• Convergence of advances across different technology areas.Experts described how transformational technologies often occur as aresult of different technologies that have advanced incrementally overtime.101 One expert noted the development of the Global PositioningSystem as an example of a technology that required the convergenceof advances in computing power, satellite technology, geospatialimaging, and timekeeping.102 Because of the strength and role of thefederal government in convening and fostering engagement amongnon-traditional collaborators on interdisciplinary issues, expertsidentified technology convergence as a potential indicator of the needto take a strategic approach.

• Progress from discovery to real-world application. Expertsdescribed how progress from discovery in an area of science to theappearance of niche applications for a technology can be an indicatorof the need to take a strategic approach. According to one expert, onechallenge in technology development is how to push the technologyforward as quickly as possible to develop it into something useful.Experts explained that by taking a strategic approach that extendsbeyond early-stage research, the federal government can support thedevelopment of potentially transformational technologies.

• Existence of barriers to technology development. Expertsidentified several barriers to the development of transformationaltechnologies that could indicate the need to take a strategic approachto developing a technology. Examples of barriers experts identifiedincluded high capital costs for research, prototyping, demonstration,or other aspects of a technology development life cycle; regulatorybarriers; lack of consensus on standards; and technologymeasurement challenges, such as limitations in the availability of toolswith which to measure products or processes.103 Experts described

101Incremental technology improvements refer to updates or improvements to existing products and technologies. 102According to one expert, cross-agency mechanisms that enable cross-disciplinary research and development—which is often called convergence—are an important way to bring together a mix of relevant scientific fields. 103Experts described how regulations could present barriers to the development of potential transformational technologies in different ways. For example, some experts described how regulations, particularly when not updated, may hinder technology innovation. Experts also described how gaps in regulatory science—which has been defined as the development and use of new tools, standards, and approaches to more efficiently develop products and effectively evaluate product safety, efficacy, and quality—may present a barrier.


multiple ways in which the federal government can play an important role in addressing such barriers through helping efforts to de-risk technologies, establishing or revising regulations, supporting standards development, and developing measurement tools.104

• Increasing involvement across multiple stakeholders orcompetitors. Experts described aspects of how increasinginvolvement across multiple stakeholders in a particular technologyarea can indicate the need to take a strategic approach to developinga transformational technology. For example, when multiple federalagencies are working in a technology area or industrial participantsincrease involvement in a particular technology, experts said suchinvolvement could signal that a strategic approach is needed to workacross boundaries and engage the research community in acoordinated way. Similarly, according to one expert, increasinginternational competition in a technology area could serve as anindicator of the need for the federal government to exercise leadershipthrough a strategic approach to organize domestic public and privateefforts in order for the United States to remain competitive.

• Need for sustained, long-term investment in areas of nationalinterest. Experts identified the need for sustained, long-terminvestment in areas of national interest as a potential indicator of theneed for a strategic approach to transformational technologies.Experts described how the short-term cycles of many federalprograms and disincentives for the private sector to sustain long-terminvestments can present challenges to developing transformationaltechnologies, which one expert noted can take years or even decadesto develop. Experts also cited a need for a strategic approach toadvancing a technology when it has the potential to betransformational and presents enormous societal benefits.

In the areas of quantum computing and synthetic biology, experts cited a need to develop a strategic approach to maintain U.S. competitiveness. Within the area of quantum computing, experts cited all of the indicators identified above in stating that U.S. competiveness in quantum computing could benefit from a national strategy. For example, experts described the need to foster interdisciplinary engagement across the fields of physics, engineering, and computer science to support convergence of advances in these areas to further quantum computing technology. Experts also

104However, one expert cautioned that standards should not be developed too early because they can deter the growth of alternative technology pathways or lock development into existing pathways.


indicated that real-world applications are beginning to become apparent in the area of quantum computing. However, they noted that significant barriers to development exist and discussed a need for sustained long-term investment in this area, which has significant implications for national security, and according to one expert, economic competitiveness. Moreover, experts expressed concern over the significant and increasing international competition from China, the European Union, and other countries. One expert noted that given the security implications of quantum computing technology, the United States needs to find a way to counter the significant investment that China is making. Stakeholders and one agency official we interviewed cited similar concerns, such as the European Union’s plans to launch a flagship initiative on quantum technology, which includes quantum computing; therefore, the United States needs a national quantum computing strategy, the experts said.

Similarly, with regard to synthetic biology, experts cited several of the indicators described above in stating that the United States could benefit from a strategic approach to maintain competitiveness. For example, experts discussed barriers to technology development, including a lack of measurement tools and regulatory barriers. According to one expert, before the 2017 update to the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology, the system was last updated in 1992.105 The expert said that it was not yet clear if the updated framework would help advance synthetic biology research. Experts also noted the need to engage across multiple stakeholders in this area; in particular, one expert noted the need for leadership to advance a dialogue about how synthetic biology could

105The Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology, a policy originally announced in 1986, outlined a comprehensive federal regulatory policy for ensuring the safety of biotechnology research and products. 51 Fed. Reg. 23,302 (June 26, 1986). In 2015, the Executive Office of the President issued a memorandum directing the primary agencies that regulate the products of biotechnology—EPA, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and USDA—to update the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology by clarifying roles and responsibilities, to develop a long-term strategy to ensure that the federal biotechnology regulatory system is prepared for future biotechnology products, and to commission an expert analysis of the future landscape of biotechnology products to support these efforts. The agencies issued the updated framework in 2017.


help address issues of national concern.106 Experts described significant foreign competition in synthetic biology. One expert said that there are more than 40 countries that have a unified strategy for synthetic biology.107 While one expert stated that NSF has initiated a synthetic biology roadmapping effort, a few experts stated that the United States does not have a similar unified synthetic biology strategy.108 One expert said that in the absence of such a strategy, the United States faces economic and physical security risks. Stakeholders we interviewed raised similar concerns.

Experts also suggested considering how to foster information sharing to help maintain U.S. competitiveness through transformational technological advances. Experts discussed the role the federal government can play in bringing together stakeholders to discuss emerging technologies and collaborate on pre-competitive research. For example, according to one expert, in 2015, 2 years after the BRAIN initiative was launched, the White House convened a meeting that brought together industry partners, academic researchers, and government scientists to share information and discuss research plans.109 This expert highlighted the importance of communication among representatives of organizations that would not normally work together, and how these conversations about where they saw research going over

106As part of a November 2016 workshop on Making the Living World Engineerable: Science, Practice, and Policy, participants discussed current trends in synthetic biology and implications for federal policy. Participants described similar challenges in terms of the barriers to advancing the technology and the need to increase engagement across multiple federal agencies and stakeholders in a strategic approach to how synthetic biology could be developed to address U.S. needs. Forum on Synthetic Biology; Committee on Science, Technology, and Law; Policy and Global Affairs; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Making the Living World Engineerable: Science, Practice, and Policy: Proceedings of a Workshop in Brief (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, December 2016). 107Many countries have developed strategies to commercialize and industrialize technological advances, according to a 2012 National Research Council report. See National Research Council of the National Academies, Rising to the Challenge. 108This is consistent with the findings of a 2012 report by the National Research Council, see National Research Council of the National Academies, Rising to the Challenge. 109We have previously reported that in-person interactions help to build trust—an essential element to collaborative relationships—and strengthen professional networks. See, GAO, Managing for Results: Implementation Approaches Used to Enhance Collaboration in Interagency Groups, GAO-14-220 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 14, 2014).

Fostering Information Sharing



the next 5 years led to greater understanding and collaboration to support the research under this initiative.

Experts identified three key reasons for sharing information to facilitate transformational technological advances in supporting U.S. competitiveness:

• Convergence of different disciplines. Experts generally agreed thatinformation sharing can facilitate an interdisciplinary approach tostudy a problem, which they said is important to the nation’s ability toconduct research for transformational technological advances. Thefederal government’s ability to convene groups, according to oneexpert, is particularly important for interdisciplinary areas of studybecause it can help bring stakeholders together to discuss howresearch could help address an area of national need. Another expertexplained that agencies’ research is increasingly interdisciplinary,which increases the importance of coordinating across agencies.110

Agency officials and stakeholders we interviewed also discussed theimportance of sharing information across fields of study. Onestakeholder said that without government funding for interdisciplinaryefforts in quantum computing, it will be challenging to solve problems,such as creating some of the computer programming needed tooperate a quantum computer, that need to be solved in order to makequantum computing viable.

• Overcoming barriers to innovation. Experts discussed howinformation sharing can facilitate the identification of barriers toinnovation and help overcome them. For example, one expert notedthe importance of information sharing in trying to address thechallenges the U.S. semiconductor industry faced in the 1980s. Theexpert emphasized the recognition that individual companies couldnot address the barriers to innovation on their own and that theyneeded information sharing, such as cross-licensing of intellectualproperty and communication about roadmapping to overcome barriersthat they faced. Another expert explained that information sharing

110This view is consistent with a National Research Council study that stated that the scientific opportunities facilitated by the convergence or coming together of insights and approaches from originally distinct fields of study can make fundamental contributions to solve society’s most difficult problems. See Committee on Key Challenge Areas for Convergence and Health; Board on Life Sciences; Division on Earth and Life Studies; National Research Council of the National Academies, Convergence: Facilitating Transdisciplinary Integration of Life Sciences, Physical Sciences, Engineering, and Beyond (Washington, D.C.: 2014).


across federal agencies led to the identification of the U.S. biotechnology regulatory system as a significant barrier to innovation and that, based on this, the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology was updated.111 This expert further said that information sharing is the first step in coordination—by sharing information, agencies can determine where there might be overlapping research efforts or gaps in ongoing research.

• Leveraging international research. Experts explained that bringingtechnologies to the United States that were developed elsewhere isnot something that has been central to U.S. science and technologypolicy, but they stressed that the United States needs to consider howto take advantage of research that other countries are conducting andeffectively utilize that information to maintain U.S. competitiveness.For example, one expert described the importance of the iGEMcompetition as an opportunity for information exchange amongresearchers from around the world who are working in syntheticbiology-related fields. In describing this example, the expert noted thatmost bioengineers will not be U.S.-based and that, to remaincompetitive in synthetic biology, the United States needs to betterunderstand discoveries being made by researchers from around theworld.

Experts said that while information sharing is important, there are tradeoffs, particularly with regard to sharing and protecting pre-competitive intellectual property. The experts said that the benefits of sharing pre-competitive intellectual property include the opportunity to speed innovation by allowing multiple researchers to work with the intellectual property concurrently and by preventing foreign competitors from restricting use of the intellectual property through obtaining a patent. Economically valuable knowledge can spread through publicly and freely available records such as scientific publications and open source software. Such knowledge can be used repeatedly, can quickly spread to users outside the institutions where it was created, and can lead to the creation of new products. For example, one expert stated that, as of

111As noted previously, the 2015 Executive Office of the President memorandum that led to the 2017 Update to the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology stated that the update should clarify roles and responsibilities of the primary agencies involved in regulating biotechnology products. Specifically, the memorandum provided that the update should, among other things, clarify the mechanism and timeline for regularly reviewing, and updating as appropriate, the Coordinated Framework to minimize delays, support innovation, protect health and the environment, and promote public trust in the regulatory systems for biotechnology products.


October 2017, a quantum computer we described earlier in this report had been available over the Internet for public use for about a year and had 50,000 users. Having a larger number of users working with this resource could lead to more rapid discovery of ways in which a quantum computer might be used than if it had not been shared. The expert said that because this technology exists, it should be developed as quickly as possible to determine what its first useful application will be and to find the first problem that only a quantum computer can solve. Doing so, the expert said, would create opportunities in which a U.S. company could profit from the technology while also developing it. In addition, information sharing was cited as instrumental to the success of the Human Genome Project, according to NIH officials we interviewed, because the project made the genome’s sequencing available as a resource for researchers to use.112

At the same time, experts said that while information sharing is important, there are risks, such as foreign commercialization of U.S. intellectual property. Experts noted that the world is increasingly competing with the United States in research for transformational technological advances. One expert cautioned that while information sharing is important for transformational technologies, it must be done carefully so that other companies do not exploit a technology or it is not leaked to a foreign competitor. Similarly, one stakeholder said that while information sharing is beneficial at the early stages of technology development, a balanced approach to information sharing—an approach that allows for trade secrets and that guards some research results—is needed once a technology is no longer in the early stages of development.

In light of these tradeoffs, experts emphasized the importance of ensuring that intellectual property protections support U.S. competitiveness; however, they also described challenges with how intellectual property is managed in the United States. For example, experts said it can be challenging to bring industry and academic researchers into partnerships that support transformational technological advances. Experts explained that some collaborators are willing to openly share their intellectual property, while other experts noted that some collaborators may be less inclined to do so because they view intellectual property as a profitable

112The Human Genome Project, coordinated by DOE and NIH, was an international, collaborative research project with a goal of completely mapping and understanding all the genes of human beings, collectively known as the genome. The project completed and published the full human genome sequence in 2003.

Human Genome Project

A deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) strand around the outline of a person. The Human Genome Project, which formally began in 1990, was a 13-year international collaborative research project coordinated by the Department of Energy and the National Institutes of Health. The Human Genome Project’s goals were to (1) identify all the genes in human DNA, (2) determine the chemical base pair sequences of human DNA, (3) store this information in databases, (4) improve data analysis tools, (5) conducttechnology transfer, and (6) address theethical, legal, and social issues that may arisefrom the project. The full sequence of thehuman genome was completed andpublished in April 2003.Through its policy of open data release, the Human Genome Project facilitated the research of others. The Human Genome Project also anticipated and promoted commercializing genomic resources and applications by establishing an infrastructure and supporting private-sector technology development. Consequently, the project led to new tools to support biological research. Further, the data and technologies generated by the project and related research present a broad array of commercial opportunities across many areas of the economy. These include more individualized diagnostics, prognostics, drugs, and other therapies as well as hardier, more nutritious, and healthier crops and animals, among other applications. Sources: Department of Energy and the National Institutes of Health (text); Department of Energy (image). | GAO-18-656


commodity. Additionally, one expert cited differences between potential industry and academic collaborators’ knowledge of, and attention paid to, developing technologies into commercial products as a potential barrier. One expert said that foreign countries generally allow university-developed intellectual property to be owned and licensed by the inventors or third-party companies (instead of the university). This can create a foundation for a startup company or make it easier to get the interest of companies who would like to acquire a university-based technology or process. The expert noted that in one circumstance, this has given an advantage to a foreign university in recruiting top researchers, helping it to become a leader in quantum computing. However, another expert stated that most major research universities have moved to a model of developing partnerships with firms, especially startups, which has minimal upfront licensing costs, and shared gains over time if the project is successful—according to that expert, such universities typically share research intellectual property rights with faculty inventors.

Focusing on technology development and commercialization is another policy consideration that experts identified for maintaining U.S. competitiveness through transformational technological advances. According to experts, the United States’ “innovation ecosystem”—the network of public and private institutions within a country whose activities and interactions initiate, develop, commercialize, and diffuse new technology innovations—has either lost or needs better mechanisms for commercializing technologies to maintain U.S. competitiveness. To address this issue, experts discussed how the federal government could focus on technology development and commercialization by providing support across multiple stages of innovation and support for the development of tools to enhance innovation.

Experts discussed a need to improve technology development and commercialization by providing support across multiple stages of innovation. Experts described how sustained federal research investments have led to key scientific discoveries, including, for example, NIST and IARPA’s decade-long support for quantum computing research and NSF’s investment in synthetic biology. However, while experts said federal agencies’ ability to support new discoveries is a strength, they explained that the United States is losing the ability to commercialize technologies that are invented here. For example, according to one expert, while the technology might soon be available to build small (100 qubit) quantum computers, the United States does not have the necessary enterprise in place to manufacture those systems. Experts

Focusing on Technology Development and Commercialization

Providing Longer-Term Assistance to Support Technology Development


stated that it may take decades or more from the time research is funded until it is commercialized. During this intervening period, significant investment is needed to support the innovation cycle in terms of research in the design, building, and testing of new product prototypes and production processes.

Experts described an increasing reliance, over time, on venture capital funding to support investments in the innovation cycle. They said that while this is generally working well in some areas such as software and biotechnology, venture capital investors have become less willing to support other technologies that require higher levels of capital investment, longer-term returns, and greater risk. For example, one expert stated that while the U.S. venture capital system spends $70 billion annually on technology commercialization activities, in 2015, the expert estimated that 5 percent of venture capital funding went to hard technologies.113 Multiple reports in recent years have documented the challenges associated with how the innovation cycle is supported in the United States and its implications for the domestic commercialization and production of new technologies.114 For example, in a 2012 report, the National Research Council stated that discoveries and inventions originating from research conducted at U.S. universities, corporations, and national laboratories no longer naturally led to products that are commercialized and manufactured within the United States. According to this report, manufacturing is important in developing new products because in many high-technology industries, design cannot easily be separated from manufacturing, and a lack of sustained investment in research and

113According to NSF’s Science and Engineering Indicators 2018, in the United States, venture capital early- and later-stage investment reached $65 billion between 2013 and 2016. National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2018. Also, a recent report by MForesight—a national consortium that engages advanced manufacturing stakeholders—showed that the majority of venture capital investment in 2017 (57.4 percent) went to software while a relatively smaller proportion (1.5 percent) went to industrial and energy technologies. See Sridhar Kota and Thomas C. Mahoney, Manufacturing Prosperity: A Bold Strategy for National Wealth and Security, MF-TR-2018-0302 (Alliance for Manufacturing Foresight, June 2018). Hard technologies are physical products obtained from scientific breakthroughs that must be translated from science into commercially viable products and require time and resources to develop. Examples of hard technology breakthroughs include technologies that increase the efficiency of power systems and production processes, and sustainably produced chemicals. 114See, for example, Peter L. Singer and William B. Bonvillian, “Innovation Orchards”: Helping Tech Start-Ups Scale (Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, March 2017); Bonvillian and Singer, Advanced Manufacturing; Kota and Mahoney, Manufacturing Prosperity; and Berger, Making in America.


infrastructure threatens to damage the U.S. innovation ecosystem, economy, and security.115

To address this issue, experts discussed a need to provide longer-term federal financial assistance to better support technology development across multiple stages of innovation. Experts stated that federal agencies often support research on short-term funding cycles (e.g., 3 years or less) that may not be conducive to the long-term support sometimes needed to effectively de-risk potentially transformational technologies. A 2017 National Academies report cited short-term funding as one factor that has resulted in U.S. science losing its flexibility and nimbleness, elements that feed new discovery.116 Additionally, experts said that federal agencies’ support may not extend to the later stages of technology development but providing longer-term support for research is an important part of the federal government’s role in advancing transformational technologies. For example, one expert said that long-term federal support facilitates creating a research infrastructure that can support a technology’s development.

Experts cited several examples of how federal agencies’ programs provide different models for supporting technology development across multiple stages of innovation.

• Advanced Technology Program. Experts cited NIST’s AdvancedTechnology Program—which COMPETES 2007 repealed—as asuccess in terms of its efforts to support transformational research.117

Experts cited several aspects of the program in discussing itssuccess, including its support for (1) research that accelerated thedevelopment of high-risk technologies with the potential for broad-based economic benefits to the nation; (2) information sharing across

115See National Research Council of the National Academies, Rising to the Challenge. 116National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Opportunities in Intense Ultrafast Lasers. 117The program’s purpose was to help U.S. businesses create and apply the generic technology and research results necessary to (1) commercialize significant new scientific discoveries and technologies rapidly and (2) refine manufacturing technologies. The Advanced Technology Program was established by the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-418, § 5131(a), 102 Stat. 1107, 1439 (1988), and was repealed by COMPETES 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-69, § 3012(a), 121 Stat. 572, 593 (2007), which replaced the program with the Technology Innovation Program. The Technology Innovation Program was repealed in 2017.


different sectors; (3) active project management and workshops that taught awardees how to pitch their technology to venture capital investors, according to one expert.118 One expert noted that the program collaborated with NIH to develop diagnostic approaches that advanced the genomic revolution.

• ARPA-E. Experts described ARPA-E—which was modeled afterDARPA—as an important challenge-based federal effort to advancetechnologies in areas aligned with DOE’s mission.119 Aspects of theARPA-E model one expert cited as important to the program’s abilityto support transformational technological advances included, amongothers, support for higher-risk research and the autonomy thatprogram directors have in seeking expert input and selecting researchprojects.120

• Manufacturing USA Institutes. One expert described theManufacturing USA institutes as an important federal effort to supportemerging technologies across multiple stages of innovation. Anotherexpert explained that in order to continue to capture the economicbenefits of the innovation system, the United States needs to embedthe knowledge for technology production locally within the country.The first expert said the Manufacturing USA institutes help increasethe connectivity among different actors involved with specific

118One expert clarified that the Advanced Technology Program did not provide awardees with financial assistance to commercialize technologies. 119As specified by statute, ARPA-E’s program goals are to enhance the nation’s economic and energy security through the development of energy technologies and to ensure that the United States maintains a technological lead in developing and deploying advanced energy technologies. 42 U.S.C. §16538(c)(1). 120The National Academies conducted an assessment of ARPA-E under a Congressional mandate. Specifically, COMPETES 2007 provided that after ARPA-E had been operational for 6 years, the Secretary of Energy was to offer to enter into a contract with the National Academy of Sciences for it to conduct an evaluation of how well the agency was achieving its mission and goals. 42 U.S.C. § 16538(l). The National Academies issued its report in 2017. See Pradeep K. Khosla and Paul T. Beaton, Editors, Committee on Evaluation of the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy; Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy; Policy and Global Affairs; Board on Energy and Environmental Systems; Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, An Assessment of ARPA-E (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2017). GAO has also reported on ARPA-E. See GAO, Department of Energy: New Process to Review Financial Assistance for Research Projects Created Uncertainty, GAO-18-278 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 28, 2018); and GAO, Department of Energy: Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy Could Benefit from Information on Applicants’ Prior Funding, GAO-12-112 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 13, 2012).




technology areas and improve their ability to leverage advances in those areas.

Experts also discussed how other countries’ long-term funding for research efforts may help them support technology development. For example, one expert discussed Germany’s Fraunhofer Institutes, where the government makes research investments over time frames of 5 or even 20 years and rewards successful projects with funding increases each year.121 In addition, one expert noted that other countries such as the Netherlands and Singapore also provide long-term research funding, allowing them to develop the broader research infrastructure necessary to support technology development. In the area of quantum computing, one expert stated that the Netherlands’ investment has contributed to one of the largest quantum computing-focused efforts in the world. According to one expert, if U.S. researchers do not conduct the research necessary over the long term to prove their research ideas, other countries will have the opportunity to pick up where U.S. researchers leave off and commercialize technologies based on this research.

121According to Fraunhofer’s 2016 annual report, they conduct applied research that is intended to drive economic development and benefit society. Projects are initially established for 5 years and, at the end of this period, the projects’ performance is evaluated to determine eligibility for additional funding. Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft, Annual Report 2016 Embracing Digitalization, (Munich, Germany: 2017). One expert described the Fraunhofer Institutes as using a shared technology development model between industry, engineering schools, and federal and state governments.


Experts stated that tool development is critical to transformational technological advances and discussed a need for federal government support for tool development to maintain U.S. competitiveness. A tool is something—such as equipment used for a specific purpose, a modified biological system, or a computer program—that is used to perform a task or that is needed to practice a profession. According to one expert, tools are crucial supporting technologies that are necessary for the product development process. According to recent reports, research in tools development can lead to the introduction of new products, materials, or the ability to produce materials at the commercial level.122

Experts explained that the United States is at risk of losing its ability to develop tools, and they identified challenges to tool development, including the following:

• Unclear needs and long time frames. According to experts, industrymay be less likely to invest in tool development when tools do notsupport existing products, but, rather, are a part of solving technologychallenges that are not clearly defined. In this context, expertsexplained that tool development can take a relatively long time, whichmay not be compatible with industry’s short innovation time frames.

• Potentially high or unrecoverable costs. Developing tools isexpensive, according to experts, and when creating a new tool,companies have to consider whether they will be able to recover theircosts. One expert described a circumstance in which a modified laserwas needed to support research on a quantum system. The expertexplained that a laser manufacturing company would need to changeits production line in order to make the modified laser, and it would bevery expensive for the company to adjust its production line to makeonly the modified laser.

Experts emphasized the important role federal agencies can play in helping overcome these challenges to tool development. For example, experts described the importance of federal support for developing measurement tools to accelerate and improve the learning cycles around designing, building, and testing technologies and products. Experts

122See National Research Council, An Assessment of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Material Measurement Laboratory: Fiscal Year 2014 (Washington, D.C.: 2015), and Subcommittee for Advanced Manufacturing of the National Science and Technology Council, Advanced Manufacturing: A Snapshot of Priority Technology Areas Across the Federal Government (Washington, D.C.: April 2016).

Supporting Development of Tools to Enhance Innovation

3D Bioprinting

A bioprinted coronary artery. 3D bioprinting is a tool that scientists are developing in the field of regenerative medicine. 3D bioprinting uses 3D printing with biological materials to create skin, bones, arteries, and a variety of other tissues and organs. For example, the Department of Defense has conducted research into using 3D bioprinting to repair skin damaged by burns—injuries that account for 10 to 30 percent of battlefield casualties. To repair burned skin, researchers have created scans of burns that a computer then uses to have a 3D printer reconstruct the burned skin. 3D bioprinting has also been used to create small blood vessel networks that contain living cells that have joined with the blood vessel networks in a mouse, allowing blood to circulate through them. Such printed blood vessels could be used to replace a damaged heart muscle. In the future, such organs could be grown using 3D bioprinting and the cells of the person who needs the organ, and they could be used in place of transplanted organs. 3D bioprinted tissues could also be used to test the safety of new drugs. 3D bioprinting is in the early stages of development. Sources: Department of Defense and National Institutes of Health (text); Adam Feinberg, Carnegie Mellon University (image). | GAO-18-656


specifically cited NIST’s role in the development of measurement tools. For example, through the NIST-on-a-Chip program NIST is developing ultra-compact, inexpensive tools that will measure quantities such as time, distance, current and voltage, and temperature and pressure and that will allow measurement technologies to be deployed without requiring traditional measurement services. In line with NIST’s goals, the private sector will manufacture and distribute these technologies.123 Experts also noted the important role federal agencies play in providing access to tools, such as technology testbed facilities to support de-risking technologies through prototyping and other development activities.

Experts identified strengthening the science and technology workforce as a consideration for maintaining U.S. competitiveness through transformational technological advances. According to experts, there is a need for federal agencies to work with academia and industry to improve connections between the training academia provides and what industry needs, such as interdisciplinary training. Experts further discussed the recruitment of researchers and the retention of research talent and a technically trained workforce; according to experts, attracting researchers has historically been a U.S. strength, but this ability may be at risk.

Experts identified the need to improve connections between academic institutions and industry so that the training academia provides corresponds to industry’s needs, particularly for interdisciplinary research fields. Without strengthening these connections, according to experts, academia may not deliver the interdisciplinary training needed for some research areas. Experts identified the systems engineering training needed to build a quantum computer as one such area of interdisciplinary training.124 For example, one expert said engineers are usually unfamiliar

123We recently reported on the measurement services NIST provides to support U.S. industry’s needs, among other things. See GAO, National Institute of Standards and Technology: Additional Review and Coordination Could Help Meet Measurement Services Needs and Strengthen Standards Activities, GAO-18-445 (Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2018). 124According to the NASA Systems Engineering Handbook, systems engineering is a multidisciplinary approach for the design, realization, technical management, operations, and retirement of a system that includes the hardware, software, facilities, and personnel, among other things, required to produce results. It is a holistic discipline, in which multiple fields’ contributions are evaluated and balanced to produce a system that is not dominated by a single field’s perspective. It is a way to look at the big picture. NASA Systems Engineering Handbook, NASA SP-2016-6105 Rev 2 (Washington, D.C.: 2016).

Strengthening the Science and Technology Workforce

Improving Connections between Academic Training and Industry Needs



with the quantum mechanics used in a quantum computer and this is challenging since knowledge of both disciplines—quantum mechanics and engineering—is necessary to develop the technology. Also, not many quantum computing researchers are trained in the fields of computer science or engineering, according to stakeholders and agency officials we interviewed. A few experts said that because universities are not training the researchers needed in some interdisciplinary areas, there are not enough researchers in those areas available for industry to hire.

Experts, other stakeholders and agency officials we interviewed, as well as some recent reports, identified several factors that may contribute to a disconnect between academic training and industry needs. For example, experts explained that universities appear to operate on the assumption that industry, not universities, must teach students the practical skills needed to be productive members of an engineering team.125 Additionally, according to a 2012 report by the National Research Council, job markets and careers for doctoral scientists and engineers have shifted since 1990 so that more than 50 percent of new doctorates work outside of academia, but there are few incentives to motivate graduate programs to align doctoral education with evolving employment activities.126 According to one expert, graduate education is largely supported by federally funded research awards to universities which tend to support basic research, not applied research or development. This expert further stated that as a result, graduate students are not taught later stage applied work relevant to industry because that has not been what federal research has historically funded.127 According to a different

125Participants expressed similar observations in a 2016 National Academies workshop on the U.S. science, technology and engineering workforce, which stated that there is often a significant gap between the knowledge, skills, and abilities most often sought by employers, and those that students bring to the workforce upon graduation. See Joe Alper, Rapporteur; Board on Higher Education and Workforce; Policy and Global Affairs Division; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Developing a National STEM Workforce Strategy: A Workshop Summary (Washington, D.C.: 2016). 126The report indicated that, while the nation’s scientific workforce needs had evolved over the last several decades with changes in the work of science-based industries, government agencies, and nonprofits, most research universities had not yet adequately adapted to the new realities of these labor markets. Committee on Research Universities, Board on Higher Education and Workforce, Policy and Global Affairs, National Research Council, Research Universities and the Future of America: Ten Breakthrough Actions Vital to Our Nation’s Prosperity and Security (Washington, D.C.: 2012). 127According to this expert, the advanced manufacturing institutes could constitute a departure from the historical federal research model of typically funding basic research at universities.


2012 National Research Council report, cultural barriers often separate industry from academia and are reinforced by organizational incentives—universities have traditionally emphasized the need to publish research, not commercialize it.128 Further, one expert, a stakeholder, and an agency official we interviewed said that universities generally were not hiring faculty who focus on quantum computing as part of their computer science and engineering departments. The expert attributed this to limited funding available to support those research programs. According to this expert, the financial assistance federal research programs provide can send an important signal to universities that can lead to evolving academic programs and hiring in interdisciplinary fields. A 2016 MIT report made similar observations and said that many universities remain siloed along departmental lines and need resources and structures that allow for team teaching—two people from different research areas co-teaching a course—or research in which students from different disciplines could be paired to answer a research question.129 However, in synthetic biology, one expert noted that some universities have started entirely new Departments of Bioengineering because aspects of synthetic biology contribute to the development of an independent, distinctive, and complementary type of engineering. This has resulted in the development of a new curriculum that incorporates synthetic biology into the training and development of bioengineers, according to this expert.

Experts discussed the importance of recruiting researchers and retaining talent and a technically trained workforce. Experts stated that attracting researchers to come and stay in the United States has historically been a national strength. The Congressional Budget Office has reported that foreign-born workers contribute disproportionately to innovation.130 Further, according to this report, foreign-born researchers account for a disproportionate number of the scientific researchers who yield many of the big discoveries and conceptual breakthroughs that drive science.131

128National Research Council of the National Academies, Rising to the Challenge. 129Phillip Sharp, Susan Hockfield, and Tyler Jacks, Convergence: The Future of Health (Cambridge, MA: June 2016). 130Congressional Budget Office, Federal Policies and Innovation (2014). 131In 2015, according to the National Science Board, 13 percent of the population of the United States was foreign born, but this portion of the population accounted for 29 to 30 percent of college-educated workers employed in science and engineering occupations and 42 to 45 percent of the workers with doctorates. National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2018.

Recruitment and Retention of Talent


However, according to a few experts, and a National Research Council report, the United States is increasingly competing with other countries to recruit and retain talented researchers.132 Countries such as Canada, China, and Singapore are attracting talented researchers to their universities and research institutes by offering high salaries and the opportunity to run well-funded programs, according to a National Research Council report.133 For example, according to a few experts, China started the Thousand Talents Program in 2008 to get talented researchers to return to China.134 The Thousand Talents Program’s goal is to bring top talent trained overseas to China on a full- or part-time basis. One expert gave the example of a university president resigning from a U.S. university because he believed the possibilities for research were greater in Asia. According to one expert, the nation’s ability to recruit and retain researchers may be at risk because the United States is not working to retain and incentivize talent. According to that expert, this puts the nation at risk of missing out on the next global transformational technological advance.

According to some experts, one challenge to retaining talent in the United States is that limited job opportunities are available to young researchers trained in certain areas. It is important to create conditions for young researchers to find employment in research and development, according to one expert, so that they can contribute to these areas. Creating the right incentive structure for people to produce transformational technologies in the United States is important, according to another expert, because when technologies are produced in the United States, the skills needed to produce them become embedded in that community. We have previously reported that too much location of skilled manufacturing jobs abroad can, in general, put the United States at a

132National Research Council of the National Academies, Research Universities and the Future of America: Ten Breakthrough Actions Vital to Our Nation’s Prosperity and Security (Washington, D.C.: 2012). 133National Research Council of the National Academies, Rising to the Challenge. 134According to a research report prepared on behalf of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, the Thousand Talents Program is administered by various Chinese entities, including local governments. According to the report, the program administered by the University of the Chinese Academy of Science requires that candidates hold a professorship at a distinguished international university or an equivalent international research institution. See Richard P. Suttmeier, Trends in U.S.-China Science and Technology Cooperation: Collaborative Knowledge Production for the Twenty-First Century? Research Report Prepared on Behalf of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, September 11, 2014.


disadvantage in terms of its ability to design new products, according to participants in a 2013 forum on nanomanufacturing.135 Similarly, in a 2012 report, the National Research Council stated that manufacturing is integral to new product development, and production lines are linked to an iterative innovation chain that includes research and development, product refinement, and full-scale production.136 In many high-technology industries, design cannot be easily separated from manufacturing, and talent availability is the most important factor for deciding where to place a production facility. In some cases, according to this 2012 report, companies are choosing to produce abroad because of concerns related to the capacity of the U. S. supply chain, technical skills of U.S. workers, and the investment climate for high-volume manufacturing. Also according to this report, as a result of these factors, the United States is finding it increasingly difficult to capture the economic value generated by public and private investments in research and development.

Federal support for research in areas such as quantum computing and synthetic biology can help promote U.S. competitiveness in the global economy. For example, advances in quantum computing have the potential to lead to transformational advances in national security technologies or technology areas that rely heavily on simulation, such as pharmaceuticals and materials science for advanced manufacturing. Research in synthetic biology could help achieve significant advances in health care, energy, and other sectors. When agencies collaborate on their research efforts, they can produce more public value than when they act alone. Moreover, collaboration through mechanisms such as interagency groups can help address complex issues, such as those remaining to be resolved in quantum computing and synthetic biology. Collaboration can also mitigate challenges associated with fragmentation of efforts across multiple agencies, as well as potential overlap and duplication.

NSTC and federal agencies have taken steps, building on earlier efforts, to coordinate their activities in the areas of quantum computing and synthetic biology. Specifically, both the new QIS Subcommittee and the new synthetic biology working group have taken initial steps to implement certain leading practices that can enhance and sustain collaborative

135GAO-14-181SP. 136National Research Council of the National Academies, Rising to the Challenge.

Conclusions



efforts. For example, both have taken steps toward agreeing on roles and responsibilities. These steps could help address problems identified in previous interagency coordination efforts. However, both the subcommittee and working group are recently established and have had limited time to fully implement the leading practices that we describe in this report. As the subcommittee and working group move forward, by taking steps to fully implement these leading practices for collaboration, member agencies could better marshal their collective efforts to support research in quantum computing and synthetic biology and help maintain U.S. competitiveness through transformational technological advances.

We are making a total of five recommendations, including one to OSTP, one to Commerce, one to DOE, and two to NSF.

• As the QIS Subcommittee moves forward, the Office of Science andTechnology Policy co-chair, in coordination with other co-chairs andparticipating agency officials, should take steps to fully implementleading practices that enhance and sustain collaboration.(Recommendation 1)

• As the QIS Subcommittee moves forward, the Department ofCommerce co-chair, in coordination with other co-chairs andparticipating agency officials, should take steps to fully implementleading practices that enhance and sustain collaboration.(Recommendation 2)

• As the QIS Subcommittee moves forward, the Department of Energyco-chair, in coordination with other co-chairs and participating agencyofficials, should take steps to fully implement leading practices thatenhance and sustain collaboration. (Recommendation 3)

• As the QIS Subcommittee moves forward, the National ScienceFoundation co-chair, in coordination with other co-chairs andparticipating agency officials, should take steps to fully implementleading practices that enhance and sustain collaboration.(Recommendation 4)

• As the Interagency Working Group on Synthetic Biology movesforward, the Director of the National Science Foundation, incoordination with participating agency officials, should take steps tofully implement leading practices that enhance and sustaincollaboration. (Recommendation 5)

Recommendations for Executive Action


We provided a draft of this product to Commerce, DOD, EPA, DOE, DHS, HHS, NASA, NSF, ODNI, OSTP and USDA for comment. Commerce, DOE, NSF, and OSTP generally agreed with the recommendations directed to them.

Commerce, DOE, and NSF provided written comments that are reproduced in appendixes IV, V, and VI, respectively. In expressing concurrence with the recommendations directed to them, these agencies’ written comments discussed aspects of the interagency groups’ efforts we examined in our report or the agencies’ own efforts related to coordination and collaboration.

OSTP’s General Counsel provided OSTP’s comments by email. In its comments, OSTP stated that it sees value in our recommendation and will implement the recommendation as resources allow. However, OSTP expressed concern about the impact that resource limitations could have on its ability to implement the recommendation. We recognize that OSTP faces certain resource limitations. However, we believe that implementing our recommendation would allow leveraging of limited resources across the agencies participating in a collaborative effort.

In an email from an official with the Office of the Chief Financial Officer in USDA’s Agricultural Research Service, USDA provided general comments on our findings and our recommendation pertaining to the Interagency Working Group on Synthetic Biology. Specifically, USDA concurred that federal support for research and development help drive technological advances and promote U.S. competitiveness. USDA also agreed that the leading practices we discuss in our report can enhance and sustain interagency collaboration, and it expressed support for the implementation of these practices in the Interagency Working Group on Synthetic Biology, consistent with our recommendation.

In addition, Commerce, DHS, DOE, EPA, HHS, NASA, and OSTP provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. Officials from DOD and ODNI stated via email that they had no comments on the report.

We also provided a draft of this report to a participant who served as moderator in our October 2017 expert meeting on research for transformational technological advances. We requested his views on aspects of the report on which he has expertise and, in particular, the

Agency Comments, Third-Party Views, and Our Evaluation


characterization of statements made by experts at our meeting. He provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees; the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, and Homeland Security; the Administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; the Directors of National Intelligence, the National Science Foundation and the Office of Science and Technology Policy; and other interested parties. In addition, this report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-3841 or [email protected]. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix VII.

John Neumann Director, Natural Resources and Environment

http://www.gao.gov/

mailto:%[email protected]

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, andMethodology


The objectives of our review were to (1) describe federal agencies’ and nonfederal entities’ support for research for transformational technological advances in selected areas, (2) examine federal agencies’ coordination on this research, and (3) provide experts’ views on considerations for maintaining U.S. competitiveness through transformational technological advances.

For the purposes of this report, we selected quantum computing (a sub-area of quantum information science) and synthetic biology (the intersection of biology and engineering that focuses on the modification or creation of novel biological systems) as examples of research for transformational technological advances. We selected these two areas of research because they: (1) represent enabling or platform technologies, which could lead to other advances, (2) are supported by a mix of federal agencies and nonfederal entities, and (3) represent areas of congressional interest in which we have not recently conducted work.

We conducted this performance audit from November 2016 to September 2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

To describe federal agencies’ and nonfederal entities’ support for research for transformational technological advances in quantum computing or synthetic biology we reviewed agency documentation, relevant literature, and our prior work related to federal research efforts. We focused on federal and nonfederal efforts in fiscal years 2016 through the second quarter of fiscal year 2018. For example, we reviewed the National Science and Technology Council’s 2016 report on advancing quantum information science which discusses the state of the research area and federal involvement. We also interviewed officials from 10 agencies and departments that have ongoing work in either quantum computing or synthetic biology, or in some instances, work in both research areas. These agencies were the: Department of Commerce, Department of Defense, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Health and Human Services, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Science Foundation (NSF), Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and U.S. Department of Agriculture. We initially selected

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Support for Research



federal agencies on the basis of those that had total research and development obligations of $500 million or greater in fiscal year 2016 according to NSF’s Survey of Federal Funds for Research and Development. Additionally, we included an agency which we learned, through the course of our work, had significant ongoing work in both research areas. We did not seek to develop comprehensive information on federal agencies’ efforts to support research in quantum computing and synthetic biology. As a result, federal agencies could have ongoing efforts in these two areas that we do not discuss in our report.

To examine the funding federal agencies provide for quantum computing and synthetic biology research, we requested data on obligations for quantum computing and synthetic biology research for fiscal years 2016 through 2017, information on the type of research funded, and the names of individual studies or projects. We requested funding data from all agencies within our scope but some agencies did not provide such data. We assessed the reliability of the data we obtained by checking for obvious errors in accuracy and completeness and by comparing the data with other sources of funding information, such as agency budget documents, where possible. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for reporting an approximate, minimum amount of federal financial assistance obligated for quantum computing and synthetic biology research.

To examine the extent to which nonfederal entities have supported research related to synthetic biology and quantum computing, we interviewed stakeholders from 21 nonfederal entities with experience in the areas of quantum computing, synthetic biology, or federal research more broadly. To collect a range of viewpoints, we selected nonfederal entities from industry, academia, nonprofit organizations, and professional associations. The 21 nonfederal entities we interviewed included:

1. American Chemical Society

2. American Physical Society

3. Arizona State University

4. Georgia Institute of Technology

5. Ginkgo BioWorks

6. Google

7. Harvard University

8. IBM



9. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

10. Information Technology and Innovation Foundation

11. IonQ

12. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)1

13. Materials Research Society

14. Microsoft

15. National Venture Capital Association

16. Purdue University

17. Science and Technology Policy Institute

18. University of California

19. University of Colorado

20. Virginia Tech

21. Yale University

We also defined the people cited in this report in the following manner:

1. Experts: individuals who participated in our expert meeting.

2. Stakeholders: academic researchers, industry officials, andrepresentatives of professional organizations who we interviewed.This group does not include agency officials.

3. Agency officials: federal officials we interviewed.

We identified and selected these stakeholders through a literature review and referrals. We conducted a literature review to learn about the current state of each research area as well as to identify relevant stakeholders in the areas of synthetic biology and quantum computing. We then contacted the stakeholders for interviews and asked them for additional references. We interviewed stakeholders both in person and over the phone.

We did not seek to develop comprehensive information on nonfederal efforts to support research in quantum computing and synthetic biology. As a result, we acknowledge that there are nonfederal entities that may

1We interviewed stakeholders from MIT, including researchers from MIT’s Lincoln Laboratory.



have ongoing efforts in these two areas that we do not discuss in our report.

To examine federal agencies’ coordination on quantum computing and synthetic biology research, we identified coordination efforts in fiscal year 2016 through the second quarter of fiscal year 2018 through our review of agency documentation and interviews with federal officials. Additionally, we interviewed officials with the Office of Science and Technology Policy. For ongoing interagency coordination efforts, we compared agencies’ efforts with selected leading practices for enhancing and sustaining collaboration.2 We selected six of the eight practices based on their relevance to the operations of the interagency coordination efforts we identified.3 In this report, and in our past work, we define collaboration broadly as any joint activity that is intended to produce more public value than could be produced when organizations act alone.4 Through interviews and a data request, we asked agency officials to provide information on their efforts to coordinate quantum computing and synthetic biology research from fiscal year 2016 through the second quarter of fiscal year 2018. For interagency groups related to quantum computing and synthetic biology, we obtained information through June 2018.

To provide experts’ views on considerations for maintaining U.S. competitiveness through transformational technological advances, we convened a meeting of 19 experts on October 12 and 13, 2017, with the assistance of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.5 The experts included current and former federal officials, as well as subject matter experts from industry, academia, nonprofit organizations, and professional associations. About half of the experts

2GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005). 3We excluded from our review two leading practices related to reinforcing agency accountability and individual accountability for collaborative efforts. 4We also refer to coordination as collaboration in our work. 5We planned and convened this meeting of experts with the assistance of the National Academies to better ensure a breadth of expertise; however, we were responsible for all final decisions regarding meeting substance and expert participation. Any conclusions and recommendations in our reports are solely our own.

Federal Agencies’ Coordination on Research

Experts’ Views




were subject matter experts in the areas of quantum computing or synthetic biology, while the other half were experts with broader perspectives on the role of federal and nonfederal entities in supporting research for transformational technological advances. We worked with the National Academies staff to select experts with a range of viewpoints.

Prior to the meeting, we worked with National Academies staff to help ensure balance and to assess potential conflicts of interest among the experts. For example, we asked all participating experts to provide information on (1) whether their immediate family had any investments or assets that could be affected, in a direct and predictable way, by a decision or action based on the information or opinions they would provide to GAO; (2) whether they or their spouse received any income or hold any organizational positions that could be affected, in a direct and predictable way, by the information or opinions they would provide GAO; and (3) whether there were any other circumstances, not addressed in the two previous questions, that could be reasonably viewed by others as affecting participants’ point of view on the topics to be discussed. We received signed responses from all participating experts. Three of the 19 experts reported potential conflicts. We evaluated their statements and determined that they did not have any inappropriate biases when taken in the context of the overall group of experts taking part in the meeting. As a result of these efforts, we determined that the group of 19 experts, overall, was balanced and had no inappropriate biases. However, the views of these experts cannot be generalized to everyone with expertise on research for transformational technological advances; they represent only the views of the experts who participated in our meeting. We list the experts who participated in our meeting in Appendix II.

We divided the 2-day expert meeting into 8 sessions focused on a range of topics, such as the role of federal and nonfederal entities in keeping the United States competitive. Each session featured an opening presentation by two selected experts, followed by open discussion among all meeting participants. At the end of each session, one expert was tasked with highlighting the key themes discussed during that session. We then solicited feedback from the experts to determine whether there were any additional comments they wanted to add to those themes. We recorded and transcribed the meeting to ensure that we accurately captured the experts’ statements.

We analyzed the information gathered from the experts by reviewing and conducting a content analysis of the transcript and identifying considerations for maintaining U.S. competitiveness based on



categorizing the experts’ comments. For purposes of quantifying expert remarks, we refer to a statement from an individual expert as being from one expert, and unless there is significant disagreement in the transcript, we refer to statements from two or more experts as being from experts. In cases of significant disagreement in the transcript, we refer to statements from two to three experts as being from a few experts, and statements from four to six experts as being from some experts. Before publication and consistent with our quality assurance framework, we provided the experts with a draft of our report and asked them to provide their views on whether our overall characterization of the meeting generally reflected the considerations discussed during the meeting.6 Of the 18 experts who responded to our request for review, 13 experts agreed that our overall characterization generally reflected the key considerations identified during the meeting, one partially agreed, and one differed with our report’s presentation of specific issues regarding synthetic biology.7 We incorporated feedback experts provided on the draft, as appropriate.

To corroborate statements made by the experts on particular topics, as appropriate, we identified and analyzed studies and reports by agencies, the National Academies, and others that were recommended to us by experts. In addition, we compared the experts’ statements to other information provided by agency officials and stakeholders we interviewed.

6We also asked experts to provide clarifying information on statements made during the meeting, as necessary. 7Three experts did not provide comments on if they agreed or disagreed with our overall characterization of the meeting and one expert did not respond to our requests for feedback.

Appendix II: Participants in GAO’s Meeting on Research for Transformational Technological Advances


Table 3: Experts Who Participated in GAO’s Meeting on Research for Transformational Technological Advances, Held October 12-13, 2017

Expert Affiliation Robbie Barbero Ceres Nanosciences, Inc. Brad Blakestad Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity William B. Bonvillian Massachusetts Institute of Technology Michael Borrus XSeed Capital Tony Dickherber National Cancer Institute Drew Endy Stanford University Maryann Feldman University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Ralph Gomory New York University Stern School of Business Richard Johnson Global Helix LLC Christopher Monroe University of Maryland and IonQ Pablo Rabinowicz Department of Energy Office of Science Marc Salit National Institute of Standards and Technology Daniel Sarewitz Arizona State University John Sarrao Los Alamos National Laboratory Lou Schick NewWorld Capital Stephanie Shipp Biocomplexity Institute of Virginia Tech Neil Thompson Massachusetts Institute of Technology Carl J. Williams National Institute of Standards and Technology Robert Wisnieff IBM TJ Watson Research Center

Source: GAO. | GAO-18-656

Appendix II: Participants in GAO’s Meeting on Research for Transformational Technological Advances

Appendix III: Funding/Investment Gap in the Manufacturing-Innovation Process (Corresponds to fig. 1)


Figure 3 shows the potential gap during the middle stages of innovation, in which innovators may have difficulty finding financial support. The figure includes a static display of the rollover information included in figure 1, which is interactive.

Figure 3 Funding/Investment Gap in the Manufacturing-Innovation Process (Corresponds to fig. 1)

Appendix III: Funding/Investment Gap in the Manufacturing-Innovation Process (Corresponds to fig. 1)

Appendix IV: Comments from the Departmentof Commerce


Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Commerce

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Commerce


Appendix V: Comments from the Departmentof Energy


Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Energy

Appendix VI: Comments from the NationalScience Foundation


Appendix VI: Comments from the National Science Foundation

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and StaffAcknowledgments


John Neumann, (202) 512-3841 or [email protected]

In addition to the contact named above, the following individuals made contributions to this report: Christopher Murray (Assistant Director), Angela Miles (Analyst-in-Charge), Justin Fisher, Scott Fletcher, Ashley Grant, Charlotte E. Hinkle, Gwen Kirby, Patricia Moye, Cynthia Norris, Emily Pinto, Tind Shepper Ryen, McKenna Storey, and Walter Vance.

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgments

(101189)


The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is through GAO’s website (https://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to https://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, https://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm.

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. Visit GAO on the web at https://www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: https://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7700

Orice Williams Brown, Managing Director, [email protected], (202) 512-4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, [email protected], (202) 512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, DC 20548

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, [email protected], (202) 512-4707 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

Congressional Relations

Public Affairs

Strategic Planning and External Liaison

Please Print on Recycled Paper.

https://www.gao.gov/


https://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm

https://facebook.com/usgao

https://flickr.com/usgao

https://twitter.com/usgao

https://youtube.com/usgao

https://www.gao.gov/feeds.html

https://www.gao.gov/subscribe/index.php

https://www.gao.gov/podcast/watchdog.html


https://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm




Documents

GAO-18-656, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: Considerations for ...Competitiveness in Quantum Computing, Synthetic Biology, and Other Potentially Transformational Research Areas . September